Community Board Votes Down Proposed Lincoln Development

Reader Murray Dwertman attended the Community Board 9 meeting last night and sent us the following report (Thanks, Murray!)

The Community Board 9 meeting primarily revolved around this development and the vote associated with whether or not to recommend this project. Two recent housing projects have recently been approved (75 and 200+ units) by the board but were for low income residents WITHIN the immediate community and were not associated with reintegration of convicted persons. Considering this as well as the developer's request for a special zoning exemption, and the concerns of the community, the board members voted 28 to 6 against all 3 motions regarding the project.

People living in the historic district on Lefferts right behind the project as well as a huge contingency from Lincoln Rd. attended. The meeting was raucous and exciting! The evening concluded with the board's recommendation against the project and invitation to the developers and architect working for the Providence House to go back to the drawing board before RE-PRESENTING the project to the community board.

The process is not over. The developer will likely come back with modified plans or try to jam the project through. This is a project that should be of concern for all of those living in the community. Attending future Community Board 9 meetings every time the Providence House project is on the agenda will be necessary in order to be heard as a local resident. Regardless, it looks like the current building is going to be demolished.

UPDATE: The Daily News article about the hearing is here: pdf; scroll down for the article, which includes quotes from attendees at the hearing and from the Executive Director of Providence House.

Comments

[babs]

Thanks for the update - naturally this topic was saved for the end of the meeting and I had to leave shortly after speaking, but I was given hope by the overwhelming speeches against the project. I would be in favor of replacing the to-be-demolished building with another, identical in size, with truly affordable units privileging neighborhood residents, not "single women with a history of incarceration and drug or mental problems," as the proposed residents of this facility were described by the Providence House representative.

[babs]

I was also amused by the project's representatives' assertion that "property values have tended to increase in areas" with similar facilities. Guess what? Property values have tended to increase EVERYWHERE in NY (until recently), and as a real estate professional, I can tell you that the opposite is true - proximity to any kind of assisted or supportive housing is a definite decrease to a property's value relative to a similar building not near such a facility (rightly or wrongly - I think usually wrongly, but try telling that to most buyers).

[babs]

Another item I found interesting (amusing?) at last night's meeting occurred during the presentation of the planned Kingston Avenue reconstruction project for this summer/fall. When the presenter mentioned that the redone Kingston Avenue would have a bike lane, Rabbi Goldstein, CB9 Chairperson, jumped up and shouted, "Not so! We agreed that was being moved over to Troy!" A reminder of the difficulties surrounding the bike lane on Kent Avenue going through the Orthodox section of Williamsburg - maybe Crown Heights will get its own version of this controversy.

[Dynishal Gross]

I think the meeting was more disturbing than exciting. It deteriorated into such a shouting match that officers from the 71st arrived to keep the peace. The public session was abruptly ended before the sponsors completed their response. My partner's 8 year-old commented with wide eyes "some of these people have anger problems!"

The project's representatives from Providence House & Community Access addressed every legitimate concern about the project's potential impacts on the neighborhood. Unfortunately these were no match for the fears, prejudices and anger of the owners of homes and condos near the proposed site.

In response to concerns that the project could negatively impact property values the sponsors pointed to a study by NYU's Furman Center that found that development of supportive housing has a POSITIVE effect on the value of surrounding properties. It's not hard to believe that new construction on a site that some say has been abandoned and derelict for 30 years would make surrounding properties more valuable. But many scoffed when this research was mentioned.

To address safety concerns based on the negative assumptions about Providence House's target population, sponsors shared that the recidivism rate for their clients is 3% compared to 30% statewide. Moreover, staff would live on site, residents would receive onsite services and would only be placed in the facility when they'd completed another Providence House program and been deemed to be fully capable of successful independent living. In addition, residents would be long-term tenants with leases who could be evicted for misbehavior and neighbors would be able to influence the management of the facility through participation in a Community Advisory Council. Thus, neighbors would have far more assurances about the suitability of a Providence House resident than any resident of a private building in the neighborhood, tenant or owner.

Providence House's architect displayed a building designed to blend into the block in numerous ways. The facade included limestone elements at ground level and around doors and windows to echo the architectural features of buildings on the block. The front set-back would have been identical to that of the buildings on either side. The 30 foot back yard would have been even deeper than the yards of surrounding buildings. In response to a question, he stated that they would try to preserve mature trees in the rear yard. The roof line would have been 14.5 feet higher than the roofs of the buildings to the right and left and the architect offered to provide a shadow study showing that this increased height would not significantly impact the block. He also credibly explained that the law required them to request the standard FAR of 4.8 although the proposed project would have an actual FAR of only 3.58 and that the zoning exemption, if granted, would not permit them to build any higher than 6 stories. (Cont. below . . .)

[Dynishal Gross]

PLG resident and business owner Sandy Lowe, a member of Community Access' staff, addressed concerns about the building's long-term affordability. The jist of it is that the building's financing, including its use of tax credits, would restrict the use of the property for years to come. In addition, the units' small size -- 300 sq. foot studios w/ efficiency kitchens -- would not make them marketable as condos. The sponsors' track record of operating similar programs for more than three decades is also strong evidence that their intention is not to pull a bait and switch.

The majority of speakers against the project justified their opposition with fears based on stereotypes of the women Providence House serves & negative predictions about how they and their visitors might conduct themselves. There were a lot of "these people" comments thrown around, a lot of "not around our kids," "not on my block/backyard" and one random homophobic dig that drew titters from a small segment of the crowd. Several people proclaimed that more condos, not supportive housing, are what the neighborhood needs. This made me wonder if the folks whose opposition was based solely on the zoning exemption issue felt a bit like main line republicans stunned by the arrival of tea partiers at a rally. I sincerely hope that the opposition you got wasn't the opposition you were looking for even if the result was what you hoped for.

Supporters of the project, including myself, were far in the minority. The most powerful speech of the night was made by Crystal Felder. Crystal is a neighborhood tenant whose personal story of recovery included a stint in supportive housing in a great neighborhood. She emphasized that these programs work and urged attendees to remember the substance abusers in their own families and their own personal struggles to reach the middle class and give others a chance. Many people reach out to Crystal after the meeting but this hardly made up for the troubling general tone of the discourse.

It's true that one Board member justified voting down this project after approving the others described above by stating that the previous developments would serve neighborhood residents only. However, it seemed that Rabbi Goldstein and Pearl Miles had different understandings of the client population at those facilities, so I wouldn't take this distinction as fact without further research.

The members of CB9's land use committee previously voted unanimously to support this project. But last night the majority of the Board sided with the "not in my backyard" contingent and defeated the project for now. I sincerely hope that Providence House, Community Access and we as a community work take advantage of this opportunity to confront the fears and prejudices that led to last night's ugliness. Sponsors have invited community members to tour their other award-winning facilities in Brooklyn to see how they function and fit into those neighborhoods. I hope some take advantage of this invitation. In the meantime, supporters of this project and others like it have a lot of organizing work to do to ensure that the commenters at the next public hearing on a similar project better reflect the diversity of opinions in the neighborhood.

[babs]

As we've all heard, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. As a real estate professional who has taken continuing education classes at NYU's Furman Institute, I am thoroughly familiar with the cited study, its methodology and communities studied and I question both its conclusions and its applicability to the current project. It focuses on facilities built between 1997 and 2005 in communities with higher levels of poverty and homelessness and lower levels of homeownership than PLG. And I ask again, as I did last night, if the proposed building will "only" occupy an FAR of 3.58 (still a 47% increase over existing zoning), why ask for 4.8? Plans do have a way of changing and why give any developer more than he (purportedly) needs?

[babs]

I would now like to add some comments regarding concerns I have about the facility as described, concerns which I did not have prior to last night's meeting and which were raised precisely by the presentations made by the project's sponsors. How healthy exactly is it to pack 20 women with a history of incarceration and drug abuse or mental problems (or both, as described by the sponsors themselves) on top of each other in 300 sq. ft. studios with no full-time social service presence, only a live-in super? And what non-client single woman, regardless of her income level, would willingly rent a tiny studio in such a building (so you can keep your 5 token "affordable" apartments)? While I was comforted by Ms. Lowe's presence on this project (another item not disclosed to the community before last night), as she is a long-term neighborhood resident with very deep investment in the community, I am more than ever persuaded that this project is outsize, ill-conceived, and wrong for this location, and I will continue to fight for its reduction to a smaller size.

[Bob Marvin]

My impression is that facilities of this type are very frequently voted down by CBs, but are built nevertheless. The [much smaller] Catholic Charities home for severely retarded adults on Midwood II, opened in the early '90s, is a case in point. It was initially opposed by LMA [which eventually changed it's position], voted down by CB9 (after an earlier positive vote, taken w/o adequate community notification) but was subsequently opened anyway and has operated uneventfully ever since.

[babs]

One more and I'll stop for now, I promise: Zoning exists for a reason. As I looked at the large apartment buildings on Ocean Ave. and Lincoln Rd. earlier today, I noticed how they are relieved by the vast green expanse that is Prospect Park right next to them. Over here on the eastern edge of PLG we have no such green relief and a bigger building will only make things worse. So someone who lives in one of those buildings thinks the proposed oversize building doesn't look too bad? That's really not a relevant or ringing endorsement.

[babs]

I would have no objection to a facility the size of the Catholic Charities home on Midwood (although it serves a very different clientele). Again, it's all in the zoning (and is anyone really naive enough to believe that just because a developer says he's going to build tiny studios he actually will - or that they can't easily be combined at a later date to make larger, more "marketable" apartments?). And the only condos I heard discussed last night were conversions of existing buildings, not new construction - and I would, of course, oppose zoning exemptions for such buildings as well, wherever they were planned.

[Leah]

I completely agree with Dynishal, who I think speaks eloquently for all of us who oppose knee jerk NIMBYism and who support efforts to help make this community more genuinely integrated. I have been struck by how divided this neighborhood is along both racial and class lines, despite its reputation as being integrated. There is a very clear divide between homeowners and renters, which has a less pronounced overlap with the racial divide. At any rate, I think that division is reflected in the intense opposition to this project and the rampant fears of having previously incarcerated substance abusers living in supportive housing amongst us. These projects are necessary to help people reintegrate into society, and we do a disservice to all of us in the community when we block these noble efforts. Dynishal, sign me up to help in attempting to drum up support for the next go round.

[Bamatek]

What Leah, Dynishal and others in favor of this proposal are ignoring is the fact that it was resoundingly disapproved by the well-informed, well-mannered, well respected community board members. The vote was 28-6 on all 3 resolutions. That is an emphatic no, by the people who had all the information. So regardless of the residents, the officials said no - and that no included all race, class, and life style demographics. Again 28-6 - NO

[murray dwertman]

Leah, a majority of the poeple there opposing the project were renters, though there were many owners as well. This shows that opinion on the project is not divided by class. Most, simply don't want a monstrosity going up in the neighborhood. Take close note the developer proposed that the city make a zoning exemption for a 50% Floor to [Lot] Area Ratio (FAR) increase. Why the exception here, when the city would likely never make that type of exception for any private developer working at this small of a scale? If they did, I certainly would again say that I don't want that in my backyard either.

[babs]

BTW, I rent. And 20 women with troubled pasts stacked on top of each other with no 24/7 social service presence doesn't sound like supportive housing to me, but warehousing. And no-one needs that anywhere.

[Seth]

For those in the know: Just how unusual is the developer's request? And how frequently are such requests honored?

[Lefferts]

If the Pro arguers would like to win my vote then Providence House can come up with a new plan for the building which is no higher than the current one and which contains the original 16 units. My concerns are around the physical size of the new unit and the number of families that would need supervising. Keep it to a more manageable size and you will appease at least some of us who are not necessarily opposed to housing used for rehabilitation IMBY. Agreed that the new building style would certainly look better than the crumbling building there now!

[lefferts]

I have to admit that I went to the CB9 meeting vehemently opposed to the project but I left less certain. My main sticking point is still the scale of the project. I agree with others that 26 units (20 for supportive housing)is just too many for that block.

It was upsetting for me to be aligned with those that resorted to name-calling and fearmongering, but we as a community had to stop these developers for all of our own reasons. PLG residents should have been consulted when planning for this project began. What we must realize now is that the building will be demolished soon, so we must work together to participate in what becomes of the empty lot. Maybe the city can be persuaded to use the space for an entirely different purpose, but if Providence House continues to develop plans for that space we should be prepared to compromise. I think the architect made a nice plan, far better than new Fedders in the hood, so if we could just convince them to scale down to maybe 10 units, it might be less upsetting to residents.

[Carmen]

I am saddened, but not surprised, by the existing prejudices being brought to light by the proposed Providence House project. A lot of far-reaching assumptions have been made to try and cover up the fear and discomfort some of us clearly feel toward people with a past not as clean and shiny as we would like. An on-going, erroneous argument has been made about Providence House not fitting into the neighborhood and possibly building up to 8 stories. The truth is that PH has never done this in previous projects. In fact, their buildings tend to fit into the neighborhood so as not to stick out like a sore thumb, very much unlike the Richard Meier condo across the park.

In regard to the comment about women being "stacked up on top of each other" because the apartments are supposedly too small... That made me giggle as I notice you haven't stopped to consider how tiny a jail cell is.

I'm disappointed that a "community" like PLG is willing to turn their backs on people who are actively trying to change their lives and rejoin society. The comments I have read and heard regarding Providence House have been hateful and based on fear.

And no, the staff member who resides at PH with the residents is not the super. I would highly recommend taking Providence House on its offer to tour other facilities so that the fear-based assumptions can stop.

Dynishal, I want to help drum up support as well.

[Frank]

This is not a case of "not in my neighborhood". As Pearl Miles (District Manager) stated, this Board and Community has approved these projects in the past - in fact the two projects that were mentioned were even larger in scope and supported far larger buildings and units. The presenters, Providence House pointed out, they have housing services established in the neighborhood on the very next block. So clearly, this is a community that recognizes the greater good and benefit of these services. We have shown with deed and action that we are an open community. We openly share our resources and welcome all without prejudice or discrimination. We celebrate the rich diversity of our neighborhood, a diversity that is the unique beauty that is Brooklyn. That diversity united in its opposition to this proposal. After receiving a much informed presentation and taking into consideration the opinion of the Land Zoning Committee, 82% of the Board, and 97% of the speakers voiced their disapproval of this proposal. A voting bloc that included homeowners, tenants, landlords, old, young, male, female, Christian, Jew, Muslim, white, Black, Asian, Latin - a voting bloc that could not be any more diverse. So yes, the presenters will have to do a better job of communicating, TO US, the greater majority and not the small, statistically, ineffective minority in support of this project.

[Frank]

I would ask that supporters of this proposal take into consideration that 82% of the voting Board, 28 of 34 members, rejected the recommendation of their own expert committee. Let's ask ourselves why did they reject the recommendation of their peer subject matter experts. There is a precedent in the community for support of these services and support of these capital projects, so why did they overwhelmingly reject this specific proposal. Because it is not a fit for whatever resaon, it doesn't pass the smell test. It doesn't fit.

[babs]

The comment that 300 sf is better than a prison cell is disingenuous in the extreme and certainly doesn't value these women as human beings like the rest of us. And the resident person there was referred to more than once as the super, by both the architect (who repreatedly mentioned the "super's apartment" in discussing the building plan) and the Providence House represtative. Apart from a major facility under construction on Kosciuszko St. in Bed-Stuy (and slipped under the nose of the community, who has reacted against it, but too late), this facility will be larger than anything Providence House has yet attempted, and their other facilities have all used existing buildings, hence the inclusion of Community Access, which does have experience with larger-sized and newly-constructed institutions. I have said nothing hurtful against Providence House's work (indeed, I have a friend who lives on the block of Prospect Avenue with a Providence House facility that houses 5 families, and everyone on the block has high praise for it), but I do question the wisdom of their taking on such a large-scale facility in such a small space, one block from an existing unit on the same street. Scale the FAR back to the allowed 2.43 zoing and halve the number of women to be resident there (fewer clients, and larger apartments) and you'll have my vote.

[Dynishal]

Leah, thanks for your eloquent, succint, supportive words. I'd love to work with you.

Bamatek, I'm not ignoring the fact that the proposal was disapproved by our community board members, whose volunteer service I greatly appreciate. But their vote was the culmination of a heated hearing during which the board members were present. They acknowledged that they were influenced by speakers' sentiments. This is further revealed by the fact that the board's vote went against the unanimous recommendation of its own land use committee, the body responsible for developing expertise on this particular issue. I don't think it's inappropriate to describe what those sentiments were, especially since so many of them were based on prejudices against a group the opponents, regardless of their own race, viewed as "other." Though the meeting and our board are diverse in some ways, only one speaker personally identified with the women of Providence House and that was Crystal Felder.

Murray, I'm not sure that the speakers were mostly renters. I didn't keep a strict count but recall some homeowners, some condo owners, some renters and 2 individuals who self-identified as realtors who must fall into one of those categories. I still think the community facilities zoning exemption makes sense when used by entities that fulfill a role that the private sector would not. To me, it's akin to making non-profits tax exempt. We sacrifice that revenue because we value the service provided more. In this case, we would sacrifice some uniformity in zoning to gain these residences for a vulnerable population. Reasonable minds may differ, but I think that's a reasonable trade-off.

Babs, clearly you and I both have positions we're trying to advance but I think it's silly to dismiss empirical research from academics who are clearly more experienced and better respected than either of us. The academics who completed the Furman Study have great reputations, a broad perspective and approached the subject objectively, looking at every supportive housing facility constructed in NYC in the study period across all five boroughs. They couldn't very well study housing where it did not exist and this type of housing is most often developed on city-owned property that is concentrated in higher poverty neighborhoods. For this reason, the authors developed a regression model to control for market and neighborhood factors to isolate the effects of supportive housing construction or rehab on the values of surrounding properties. The NY Times thought they did a fine job: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/opinion/07fri3.html?_r=3&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin. So do I. If anyone is interested in seeing the study for yourselves, both a policy brief and a working paper are available here: http://furmancenter.org/research/search/8dcf46eb69a144ae64e1f0b73405ceb6/. Both are quite readable.

Your comments about the effectiveness of Providence House's program model are not actually new but hearken back to your first postings on this issue on the Lefferts list where you linked to an article with no citations, making the same speculations. What's the credible basis for these assumptions? I think Providence House and Community Access' decades of experience helping their client population succeed count for more than this kind of speculation.

And Frank, I don't know what happened at the meetings where the previous projects were approved or if those approvals happened before the blogosphere made it possible to organize opposition more quickly. I do know what was said Tuesday night. And it was various permutations of NIMBY, literally, from almost every speaker in opposition. Without this opposition, it's likely the community board would have voted differently, given the land use committee's recommendation and their past approval of larger supportive housing projects as noted by Pearl.

[erin]

If, as Dynishal posts, without the opposition from community members the board would have reached a different conclusion it sounds like the meeting was truly effective. The community board should work in the best interest of the neighborhood. It sounds like they listened and voted accordingly. To make sure they continue to listen I, for one, will be at the next meeting.

[Free Love]

Dynishal, kudos to your social conscience, but we homeowners want this project OUT!

How can you even for a moment try to push this crap on us when it's so cut and dry?

Why should the homeowners of PLG have to deal with any more casualties of American capitalism than we already do? How many low income families do we live amongst already? Now we are adding ex-cons? No, sweetie, no, no, no!

Tell Providence House to share the love with someone else.

[bamatek]

How over confident the supporters of this proposal must have been to only have one to two speakers prepared to support the proposal. How disingenuous to not accurately describe Crystal Felder as being angry and offensive to the residents of the community. How arrogant of the supporters of this proposal, to assume that the neighborhood would rubbber stamp this proposal. How foolish they must look now that they know that what is hidden in the dark will be revealed to the light.

[Mike P]

I am new to the area and find this debate very interesting. I am also someone who believes strongly in compromise.

Clearly, owners in PLG have a vested interest in retaining their property values and rightfully so. It is also clear to me that such a Half-way house will hurt property values.

On the other hand, our justice system is based on the belief that a person who has broken the law CAN be rehabilitated. As far as rehabilitation goes, small steps are better than one big one, so a halfway house is clearly a useful tool. I think we can agree on that.

Obviously, these houses need to be built somewhere, but where? Any community where such a house is built must agree to it for a variety of practical reasons like property value, public safety, etc. Personal reasons like fear or discrimination aren't exactly valid reasons for not allowing a such a house to be built. BUT I think those fears of having ex-cons are at least partially based on legitimate reasons for concern.

Now, I think as part of a nation that holds this ideal of rehabilitating criminals so high we need to consider that we have some responsibility in helping in that rehabilitation. That is not to say we must take an active role like, say, a parole officer, but I think we have to take some kind of role.

With that said, I would like to propose something to you all. Why not allow the house to be built under the stipulation that it is only for a trial basis? Build the house so that it can be easily modified if the rehabilitation program fails to meet standards set by our community. In such a case the house can be sold to a buyer the community approves.

There is a severe lack of support form the general public in rehabilitating criminals. I think it is partially due to the fact that we trust our government and/or poorly run non-profit groups to do all the work. I don't think that system is all that effective.

What if we set the standards in a way that appeases our sense of how rehabilitation should be done, make Providence house answer to us, and hold them accountable for their failings if and when they do.

If the building is up to the standards of the community, let them build it and own it. But if they're rehabilitation program doesn't meet our standards after, say, a year, force them to sell to a private buyer that meets our approval. This not only allows people a chance to be rehabilitated but gives the community in which they will be rehabilitated a say in the process.

I don't think this kind of thing has ever been done before, but I would imagine that property values surrounding the Half-way house would take much less of a hit if the owners of those properties have a say in what the half-way house does.

I think there is a real chance to do some good here but also give the community an easy way out should it not work the way we like.

[bamatek]

How shocked and surprised must the supporters of this proposal be to know that it only took 3 days (most of the residents found out Thursday) of grass roots organization via word of mouth to mount a successful opposition. How disappointed they must be to know that people, when asked, in advance, will participate in the democratic process.

[Dynishal]

Bamatek, I'm not sure if your last two posts are sarcastic or sincere but the assumptions aren't correct. I'm not surprised you found out last Thursday. I only found out when the CB agenda was described on our neighborhood blogs.

I wasn't recruited or groomed by the sponsors. In fact I have absolutely no formal connection to them. I think that's true for all of the small number of residents who spoke in support of the project. I regularly attend CB meetings and have defended this project because it's in line with my general support for affordable housing development, my interest in living in an inclusive, diverse community and the value I place on evidence based decision making, among other things.

Even though the content of many of the statements were disturbing to me, I'm glad people turned out to participate in their local government. If I didn't believe public dialogue was valuable I wouldn't have participated in this meeting or in the forum. I just disagree with the naysayers' positions.

Since supporters approached the hearing as citizens, not organizers, the organized opposition dominated the discussion and carried the day. But I'm learning and hope for a better (from my perspective) outcome next time. And I hope and expect that Providence House will be better prepared to face neighborhood opposition in the future.

[babs]

Here's how the "organization" of the anti-proposal campaign went: I found out about this on the day it was posted here, on Hawthorne St., and zoomed over to look at CB9's agenda for more info. A fervent opponent of zoning exceptions for new development for any reason, I immediately signed up to speak (why I was called first). I also mentioned this proposal to several neighbors and urged them to come out to the meeting and speak if they wanted to. Other residents also acted independently - we ALL approached the hearing as citizens, not organizers. However, those of us not fundamentally opposed to the idea of such a facility, just its size, are organizing now, and I have reached out to both Providence House and Community Access to see if they would be interested in discussing a downsized project with us. I hope they will.

[babs]

That should read zoning exceptions for new RESIDENTIAL development. I'd be a lot happier with a true "community facility," as in maybe a place where some of the young people hanging out on the street could go to play sports, take classes, etc. Think about it - there is really nowhere that teens and pre-teens can go in this neighborhood to play a game of basketball (except on the street) or learn a craft or skill.

[Dynishal]

I didn't pull the idea that the opposition was organized out of thin air. Bamatek mentioned the grassroots organizing. And there was that online petition. In any event, my comment was meant as an acknowledgement of a successful strategy, not a critique.

[Cynthia Foo]

I'm disappointed by the tenor of the discussion here, just as I was of the discussion in person. Ad hominem attacks, sarcasm, deliberate mischaracterizations and flat out bullying were the highlights of the evening. I'm sorry to see that most of the heat and noise continues to come from the opponents to this project. While more reasoned arguments have been put forward here (amongst the vitriol), not much has changed. This is what happens when arguments appeal to emotion and fear.

Even if I were an opponent to the project, I would be embarrassed to call anything that happened that evening anything close to a "victory". To crow over what happened as a representation of democracy is saddening and troubling. During the meeting, the proponents of the project were far outnumbered by its opponents. You would think this would have led to the proponents becoming frustrated and vocal. Not so. Instead, the meeting degenerated into name-calling and yelling from the opponents to the project. The representative from the Sisters of St. Joseph couldn't even issue one sentence to the audience when it was her turn to present a response to community opposition -- she was shouted down. Shutting down discussion, name-calling and dismissing others' opinions does nothing to further one's own ethics, and everything to undermine a healthy community. What was present was not democracy in action, it was a classic example of an angry crowd.

Speaking of anger, Crystal Felder was hardly the "angry" individual characterized here. Putting aside the courage needed for someone to publicly self-identify as she did, it's even more clear how ludicrous this characterization is when put in context of the woman opponent to the project shouting so loudly at Sandra Lowe that her howling outside the building could be heard all the way to the front of the auditorium. Or when considering the angry man who continued to shout antagonisms and override the CB chair's repeated calls to show respect to the speakers and give them a chance to make their case. The 71st Precinct's presence was necessary as the meeting degenerated and opponents themselves started fighting with each other over their own shared positions. Is this really the democracy and victory that anyone thinks should represent their community?

A healthy community is able to stretch to meet challenges, calmly and reasonably. A healthy community is able to deal with exceptions to zoning regulations, thinking about why they are asked for, not just voting them down "because it may open the floodgates". "May" is not "will". Let's work with what is present, not what worst fears may or may not materialize. I look forward to a very different and much more considered discussion next time around, one where everyone is able to both speak, and to have some intelligent, reasoned conversation.

[bamatek]

Cynthia you are entitled to your minority opinion. And we are entitled to our majority opinion. I believe the meeting was going well and was fairly tame up until Rabbi Goldstein attempted to shut it down. We all see this issue within our own biases, I for one have taken the challenge and visited Providence House on Lincoln Road. I have spoken to the residents and staff at that location and I will stay opposed to this proposal. I fully support humanitarian efforts such as supportive housing, but we have already delivered our fair share of support for supportive housing. I susepect that your disappointment lies in the fact that the proposal was defeated. I believe you may be surprised that this vocal majority continues to fight against this proposal. We will be present in whatever forum necessary to continue to voice our opposition. Your embarrasment stems from your defeat that from our behavior.

[bamatek]

Let's stay vigilant in our opposition to this proposal. Do not allow the minority in support of the proposal claim the high road of morality on this issue. We have the right to say no. We have said no. We will continue to say no. We will say it loud, soft, in every way possible. In every forum, at every event, in what ever medium we need to and we will do it in a way that there can be no misunderstanding. We will get our message across that we reject this proposal for a variety of reasons. Stay alert, follow this proposal by watching the CB9 website at http://www.communitybrd9bklyn.org/. Follow this issue by watching for any news on 329 Lincoln Road, Block 1329 Lot 59 on the NYC government website. Be prepared to voice your opinion. If you wish to scream and yell, that is your right. Go tell it on the mountain!! Remember that this proposal was rejected for a number of reasons. and healthy discourse amongst otherwise like-minded individuals is the cornerstone of our democratic society. We can share in our opposition without necessarily agreeing on method or reason.

[Carmen]

Cynthia, that was very well put. Thank you.

[bamatek]

An article appears in today's NY Daily News, "Bid to bar housing for female ex-cons in Prospect-Lefferts", Mike McLaughlin, pg 43. It suggests that we are Have's willing to live with drug-dealers, but not willing to share with have-nots, i.e. the residents of Providence House. Make sure you let the Daily News and Mr McLaughlin know that it was not our desire to "live with a drug-dealing ring". Nor did we consider this a have/have-not scenario. It is simply a choice we are making that this location is not ideal or suitable for this proposal.

[Charles Star]

bamatek: I read that this morning and wanted to link to the article, but it doesn't appear to be online. I'll scan and post the article when I get home.

[bamatek]

some heavy machinery showed up at the site,so it appears at least that HPD is going forward with the demolition of the building. The next CB9 board meeting is 6/22 where I will ask the question as to what are the options for utilizing the space for other projects e.g. community garden

[bamatek]

A meeting will be hosted by Providence House on Thursday, June 17th, 7:30PM at St Francis, 335 Maple Street to discuss this proposal. A tour of the existing facitlity (396 Lincoln Road) will follow the meeting. Contact Kim Singleton, 718-455-0197 ext 10 by June 16th, if you wish to attend the meeting.

[babs]

Too bad no link to the Daily News article. What drug dealers are we willing to live with, exactly? Considering how much effort I and most of my neighbors have put into calling the 71st Precinct about drug activity in the area (all too often only to be told there's an ongoing invesitgation and then nothing happens), I don't think we're too willing to live with that. And if there is such a large drug dealing population in the area, is this a good place to put 20 women with a history of substance abuse problems?

[Charles Star]

Thanks for the reminder, babs. I've added a link to a pdf of the article, which the author was nice enough to send to me.

[babs]

Thanks for that, Charles. To be fair, I didn't get the implication that the writer implied residents were willing to live with drug dealers but not Providence House clients, and the only person who mentioned anything about "Haves vs. Have-Nots" was one Providence House supporter and former client. And quite honestly, I wouldn't consider most of my neighbors as anything more than solidly middle class - this isn't Brooklyn Heights, or even Lefferts Manor.

[bamatek]

Providence House presented their proposal for this project to a group of community residents this past Thursday at St Francis. This project is still active and is moving forward as planned. At this point the Community Board vote that took place in May, which rejected the proposal, HAS NO BEARING OR STANDING. AND HAS HAD NO EFFECT ON THE PROJECT. This project, with the zoning change, is moving forward. It was disappointing to finf out that the Community Board's vote had no bearing on the proposal. Contact your local reps, acouncil man, state senators, etc if you want any action.

[bamatek]

Whether in favor or opposed to this project, we should demand some accountability from our Community Board. We should demand an explanation or at the very least request a status update on this project. According to the process (see this link: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/luproc/ulpro.shtml) the CB is required to "..hold a public hearing and adopt and submit a written recommendation to CPC". So has the CB submitted the written recommendation and if so, what did it say?

[babs]

Where are you getting your information that this project is going ahead, bamatek? I attended the presentation and found it to be remarkably short on any kind of facts reagrding CB 9's recent disapproval. The turn down wasn't even mentioned, as I recall, nor was the ongoing approval process. Instead, it was perhaps the sort of introductory presentation that should have been given prior to the community board meeting, with an extra dose of Catholic guilt thrown in. What I got out of this presentation: this facilty will be quite unlike the existing home on Lincoln Rd., which has a member of the CSJ who lives on-site. This facility is larger, and, as confirmed by Sister Janet Kenney, Executive Director of Providence House, the only live-in presence will be that of a super. Social services will be available on-site M-F 9-5 ONLY. All the more reason to oppose it in its present state. As proof that nothing has yet been decided, Mathieu Eugene was there, again all buddy-buddy with the Providence House representatives, and as seemingly surprised and clueless as ever as to the community's true feelings about this. He even said, "I haven't done anything on this yet. You have to tell me what to do. I'm not a politician, I'm a peopletician." (Ouch! Yes, he really did say that.) He then tried to turn the discussion to cuts in other services proposed by the City, at which point someone yelled out something about why was city money then being proposed for this and the meeting got out of hand (in a church!). But I think this was more a tactic to drum up support for the project (primarily from neighborhood Catholics - the pastor even went door to door on the surrounding blocks asking people to come), and from the reaction of most of the attendees and speakers (there was a current Providence House client from the neighborhood, currently living in Canarsie, and one supporter of the project; all other speakers were opposed), I don't think it worked. The days of Catholics blindly doing whatever their parish priest says are pretty much over.

[babs]

As far as the ULURP process goes, according to City records (http://home2.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/lu_apps/ulurp_ref_allappl.pdf#search="lincoln") the Community Board has until July 19th to submit its written recommendation to the CPC and Borough President. Currently, having been voted down at the last meeting (that was the public hearing, BTW), that recommendation is no. If however, the Community Board does not submit a recommendation by this date, or waives its right to do so, the application goes to the next step - Marty Markowitz, who has 30 days, after which time the application goes to the CPC (City Planning Commission), whose decision is usually final and terminates the ULURP process. Note that disposition of residential property is usually also required to be reviewed by the City Council, except in the case of its use by non-profit institutions for low-income housing (how convenient!).

[babs]

Just to clarify my earlier comment - the CB's recommendation or lack of one is not the final step in the progress and the struggle is far from over. Providence House apparently intends to go ahead with its plans with no change (no-one has repsonded to my requests to disuss a downsizing of the facility) - this is most likely what any developer would do, becuase the party with the final say is the CPC, not the community board, and Providence Houses's actions are not a surprise to me. Obviously continued vigilence and action on our part is required here.

[bamatek]

The May meeting was the public hearing required by the process.

July 19th is the deadline to submit a written recommendation to the BP.

The BP has 30 days to forward a written recommendation to the CPC. The CPC has 60 days to decide on the application.

If the CB and the BP reject the proposal the CPC can still approve the project.

If the BP objects to the CPC approval then the City Council can elect to review the project.

So, this is my point when I say this project is moving forward.

Modificatons that have been suggested to the CB include increasing the local residential allotment from 20% to 30% and to reject the zoning amendment for 6 stories.

And it is my belief that the CB is not inclined to submit a written recommendation to stop the project.

[Dynishal]

There was more than one speaker in favor of the project at last week's parish meeting. I spoke in favor of the project and was happy to hear two other women, one from the front of the room, another from the back, speak of the supporting project as an expression of their own Christian values. And Babs, I recall quite distinctly that it was you who screamed at Councilmember Eugene about supporting programs like Providence House in the face of budget cuts. You even repeated yourself in case the initial outburst hadn't been clear, prompting the priest to admonish the crowd to be more respectful of speakers. You could have refrained from mentioning this incident but since you brought it up you should also take responsibility for the action.

The sponsors offered some useful facts in response to audience questions. Concerning the issue of onsite supervision, they shared that a nun who lives three doors down from the project will be the project manager. So not onsite, but close. In response to a question about unit size, they explained that the existing building housed approximately 50 people in 16 apartments in less square footage. The 26 residents will be in studios but they will be in a well-designed building with a backyard and more interior space than many New Yorkers enjoy. They also explained that it would neither be cost effective nor provide ample program space to build a new facility with only sixteen units.

[babs]

Actually, it was a person behind me who shouted out at Councilperson Eugene; I raised my hand at the same time in a (perhaps misguided) effort to draw attention to that person's outburst. And no, those 16 apartments were not under 300 sq. ft. each; they were typical left-right tenament apartments of approx. 850 sq. ft. each, separated by a central stairway. And if a smaller facility isn't cost effective here, then don't build anything.

[babs]

And I mentioned 2 speakers in favor of the project, not one - and I still can't recall who the third one was, but if you say so, I'll go along with it - perhaps just my dislike for all this talk about "Christian" values, as if Christians had a monopoly on caring about others.

[babs]

Just to correct my math above - I should have divided that 850 sq. ft. into 2 apartments of 425 sq. ft. each, for a total of 16. And that's interior useable square footage, excluding bathrooms, closets, etc., not total square footage, unlike the Providence House plan - so from that 300 sq. ft., subtract a bathroom and a closet, and you'll have useable square footage of (maybe) 275. And however the Providence House supporters here try to portray the opposition as an unruly, ignorant mob (which, in the vast majority, is untrue) in an effort to discredit them and distract from the central issue, the fact remains the same: nearly every resident of this and surrounding blocks is opposed to this facility in its current form (for whatever reason). Change it or take it elsewhere.

[bamatek]

Last night CB9 concluded its business for this session. They will not meet again until Sept.

As it relates to this proposal, they have informed the BP office of their vote to reject the project. As per Rabbi Goldstein, the CB9 chairperson, they have/will followup with a written recommendation as per the ULURP procedure. This concludes their role (unless there is a modification) in the ULURP process. You can request a copy of this document by contacting the CB9 office.

Note: The CPC status shows "in community board review" with a due date of July 19th.

The project now moves to the BP office for ULURP review. The project was not on the agenda for last night's BP ULURP review.

You can monitor the BP website to see when/if there will be a ULURP for this project (C100326 HAK, C100325 ZSK)

[bamatek]

Richard Bearak, Director, Land Use for the Borough PPresident office has informed me that the Borough President's public hearing is scheduled for July 8th at 209 Joralemon Street, downtown Brooklyn.

[bamatek]

This project drew some local news coverage. Yesterday, it was covered by Nicole Ryan and broadcast on News 12 Brooklyn Cablevision.

The broadcast was short, but in my opinion it was balanced and fair.

[Keva]

It is great to hear that others in the area are standing up against this development. I'm a owner of a house almost directly behind the proposed development and having 4 small children, we will definitely be letting our voices be heard.

[Tom]

Totally agree with you all. A property next door is possibly going to be developed. Do you know where you can buy the signs opposing to inappropriate development to put outside my house.