Planned Manhattan Homeless Shelter Leaves Alexander Hotel Residents In Uproar, Authorities MIA

Manhattan residents were already irked when they arrived for a meeting about repurposing an Upper West Side hotel into a homeless shelter. But when government officials didn't even show up, the crowd -- packed into a standing-room-only space -- assumed they were trying to dodge a bullet.

WPIX captured attendants' reactions to what they called a "cowardly" act by the Department of Homeless Services and Samaritan Village, the nonprofit that will operate the homeless facility.

"They were scheduled to come, and about an hour before the meeting they cut and run. Because they're afraid to confront people with the awful facts of this shelter. It is an inappropriate use of the building."

WATCH:

Local news site DNAinfo.com reports a DHS spokeswoman declined to comment but says a follow-up meeting will happen in the future.

A director of a tenant advocacy group says the main issue is the fact the owners are forcing out existing residents of the Alexander Hotel -- a school cook who pays $439 a month and a food service worker who pays $392 a month, for example.

"This is one of our main concerns about the city putting [homeless facilities] in SRO buildings," Weithman said. "It's a lot money and there are high stakes for these owners, and we see tenants forced out. This is permanent housing that we'd like to see kept as permanent housing."

The site reports that the landlord has offered residents $50,000 and three years rent if they relocate to a building next door. The DHS signed a nine-year, $8 million-a-year contract with Samaritan Village.

Besides being a cheap option for low-income residents, the hotel also rented leftover rooms to tourists on a budget. The city has now banned single room occupancy buildings from functioning as revolving door hotel rooms for tourists, a law that will take effect in March.

Some residents blame the new law as the reason the hotel is being repurposed. However, Bill sponsors say the two are unrelated.

Comments

[Zenzi]

04:30 PM on 01/31/2011

What some do not understand is that this neighborhood was brought back from the brink. The community has an abundance of transitional housing and the neighborhood has always been compassionate, but there is a limit. The neighborhood has become increasingly family-oriented and has become clean and safe over the past decade. There simply is not the support, or the resources to also handle a 200 bed mens shelter (within 1 block of many children's facilities, including an elementary school, I may add), in addition to other supportive housing in the immediate vicinity. Good Samaritan facilities are known for "difficult" populations, this is another issue. I think it is unfair to brand this neighborhood as incompassionate, or Nimby, because of it's opposition. Most of you would be astonished if you were to look at a map identifying such facilities across Manhattan, the West 90s is full of them while some neighborhoods are strangely void of any facilities. Time to share the burden. Seriously, how many of these shelters are the welcome neighbors of Mayor BloomBucks? Direct your ire at neighborhoods that carry zero of this supportive housing burden, not those which have done more than their fair share.

[Mortifyd]

04:38 AM on 02/01/2011

So if it was a family shelter would you have the same problem with it? Men are more likely to be homeless and to penalise them for being male is sexist.

[CptFreakout]

11:38 AM on 01/30/2011

We use NIMBY for everything alt energy mass transit etc , when you add the property value argument then that restricts all housing for working poor and shelters .
People who have nothing and are treated the same have an i don't care attitude that comes with having nothing they have nothing to loose and yes resentment . Theft why blame the poor just look at wall st and clowngress the only difference is clothes and affording lawyers and PR .
The homeless scare people its a reminder of how easily it could be them and they don't want that in your face reminder .

[Joseph Schmoe]

10:39 PM on 01/29/2011

Seriously, is there any issue at all in NYC that does NOT have a room full of screaming people with polarized positions? No wonder the big apple is mostly rotten.

[ed insider]

04:26 PM on 01/28/2011

The view from here - it seems like a bunch of rich people fought to get the hotel with its Eurotrash guests closed down, they didn't see this whole homeless shelter thing coming in behind it and now they want a do over.

[commute1042]

06:49 PM on 01/27/2011

so who's the bad guy? i'm lost....and i usually find myself at the end of the article.

[Bill M NY]

01:55 PM on 01/27/2011

Bad thing here is that my Libertarian roots are going to show. The owner is willing to compensate the tenants for the move, fairly compensate i might add. The owner also has fair rights to use their property as they see fit. As long as they do not lower the property values of the surrounding buildings / property, they should not need to check in with anyone.

On the moral side, it is not as if they are kicking people to the streets to turn the building into million dollar condos. They are turning it into a homeless shelter. And giving the current tenants something for moving.

I have a hard time arguing against the owners rights to use their property as they see fit, because I know that I couldn't install a solar farm in between my future wind mill on my property without my neighbors screaming and filing an injunction because they don't like looking at it. I find NIMBY laws and rules to be unacceptable, so I must find the opposition to this plan unacceptable as well.

Their property, they can do what they like as long as they do not cause economic hardship on the other property owners. Renters suffer, I agree there, but there was no contract violations.

:(

[Zenzi]

04:18 PM on 01/31/2011

Well, there is the consequence of economic hardship on property owners. Already, potential renters and buyers of nearby condos have officially rescinded offers due to uncertainty and safety issues related to this project. So your argument is moot.

[Chrystal Ji Davey]

12:49 PM on 01/27/2011

I wish I understood this better... :/

[mikey09]

12:18 PM on 01/27/2011

These are not apartments but single rooms? How do people cook and keep food in a frig?
 
So, 50k plus 3 years free rent....doesn't sound bad to me......but I always find it interesing that people support things like homeless shelters or halfway houses till they are purposed  for their neighborhood....then its a different story.

[BevfromNYC]

11:58 AM on 01/27/2011

Of course, what this doesn't say is that Charlie "I've got 4 rent-stabilized, state subsidized low rent apartments" Rangel was one of the people protesting about the new homeless shelter. Maybe if he had given up 3 of his apartment without the Congressional censure, there would be somewhere for these people to move to...

[Hpotterfan77]

04:00 PM on 01/27/2011

Link please?

[BevfromNYC]

04:57 PM on 01/27/2011

Right from the horse's mouth...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/t/gale-brewer-and-charles-r_27508349448749056.html

Photographic proof - NY Post
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/side_fallout_shelter_DH0ZX0zt6N7u8SjVHkWCYL

Need more?

[kndam72]

11:52 AM on 01/27/2011

gutless officials.

Perhaps Imus should have directed his comments to a group of folks that really deserves it.

[Purcy]

11:27 AM on 01/27/2011

Yes, everyone knows that homeless people should all be put on their own 'island' so as not to offend the rich and powerful. They also know that every homeless person is out to destroy or defile their children. Seriously, they don't want them in an area where they are raising their children? Where do they want them? In a neighborhood that is already fraught with poverty? "Sweet land of liberty...of thee I sing"

[Edward Standley]

11:34 AM on 01/27/2011

Very important point. The homeless people you see on the street are US. They are in situations caused by a poor economy, joblessness, mental illness, or addiction. They are not monsters. A society must be judged by how it treats it's least powerful members. And they ARE members.

[caesarf]

02:58 PM on 01/27/2011

Not at all. Did you know that there are thousands of vacant buildings in the city that could be repurposed for the homeless? When will someone with a brain and a heart figure out that this is a better option-add more housing units for people that are homeless while allowing those that already have a home that they can afford to remain secure. Instead a landlord decides to cut a deal that removes his affordable housing (I'll bet he probably got a deal when buying this building in the first place) from the market. Another rent stabilized building off the market. This is a very bad for the working poor.

[chaapai]

11:20 AM on 01/27/2011

a clear case of NIMBY syndrome! Amerika is a Xian nation! But a shelter to house the poor and actually put the Xian principle of charity into action? Not in my back yard!

[realitytrumpsbull]

11:09 AM on 01/27/2011

Class-conscious rich people don't like having to fraternize with the riff-raff. Manhattan's an upscale place, where if you have to ask, it's too much. People worked hard to get that 3 million dollar loft in Manhattan, they don't like the idea of people with no money being given a free place to live.

[Lesann]

08:34 AM on 01/29/2011

It might also be that their homes value will go down. If they bought their home for 3 million dollars, I don't think they would be able to sell it for that much with a homeless shelter across the street. Not arguing - but another point of view.

[WalterJesseSmith]

11:06 AM on 01/27/2011

Here's our government:

"This is one of our main concerns about the city putting [homeless facilities] in SRO buildings," Weithman said. "It's a lot money and there are high stakes for these owners, and we see tenants forced out. This is permanent housing that we'd like to see kept as permanent housing."

If anyone in the human race finds a way to reach any government official, please bring it to their attention that the homeless population is a permanent challenge for finding homes because, well, our government has an apparently permanent incapacity to adequately address the homelessness issue.

[hitchanvil]

01:21 PM on 01/27/2011

And here I thought we all were supposed to stand on our two feet. Why don't homeless people address their own situation? If I were left without a home for whatever reason I'd be busy getting a roof over my family's head.

They wanted to put a metal health and drug counciling center in our neighborhood. I drive by one everyday and know these places soon become a hangout for legalized drug users. They give folks with "mental health issues" drugs and they give the druggies drugs to get off the drugs they're on. I was happy to see evey neighbor in attendance and we shut them down.

I own a home in a good neighborhood and want to keep it that way.

[Alette]

10:25 AM on 01/27/2011

Typical class war. Pit the nearly-homeless against the homeless, thus ensuring that they never band together to fight against the people at the top who are the real problem. As a longtime New Yorker, I am becoming increasingly disgusted with how my city behaves, though sadly, I am no longer surprised. Money rules here and that attitude is crushing us. Unfortunately, I think that's the point.