Closing Bell: Proposed Law Would Block Closure of Park Slope Senior Home


Following the news that Park Slope assisted living facility Prospect Park Residence plans to close, local pol State Assemblywoman Joan Millman has introduced a bill that would effectively halt the shutdown for two years. The law would create a nine-person commission to study and report on the effects of long-term care facilities closing their doors.

For two years, all long-term care facilities throughout the state would be prevented from closing, converting to another use, or reducing their staffs. The Department of Health has already OK’d the closure.

In the meantime, community groups are planning more protests against the closure tomorrow and Saturday in front of the senior home at 1 Prospect Park West. Details can be found on Facebook. An online petition against the closure has garnered more than 3,000 signatures.

Conversion or Tear Down for Troubled Park Slope Senior Home? [Brownstoner]
Photo by Nicholas Strini for PropertyShark

8 Comment

  • Correct me if I am wrong but is this not a private facility????

    Assuming it has some sort of license, changing the rules and making that retroactive to existing facilities is a game that they won’t win. For one thing it will reduce the number of providers in the future when people see this sort of thing happening by government do-gooders.

    • I understand your point as being totally practical, but your tone is extremely crass. My mother is one of the seniors who has to move out, and this situation sucks all around since they probably knew this when she signed her lease in October of 2013. I am moving her out to a residence in Manhattan, a 30 minute drive away for me instead of 10 minutes. I do not think that this fight is worth while, or winnable, which is why I’m moving her out as quickly as I can. The fact is, these people are old and frail and need a lot of services that I fear will deteriorate the longer this drags out. These people cannot handle that. The best that the Pols can do is try to prevent this from happening in the future and make it easier to open these facilities so there can be more of them in this part of Brooklyn.

      • My question had absolutely nothing to do with the plight of people in the home which os very unfortunate. I was just trying to understand the legality or lack thereof of this “commission.” My tone was straightforward. Call someone else crass.

  • This is insane. This is a private facility. Instead of local socialists attempting to turn us into Venezuela, how about finding a new home for this people–or having some foundation buy the place and keep it open. People, keep this up, and there will be no money left to help those in need. Stop killing capitalism.

  • I think the problem is not so much that a private individual wants to monetize his investment, most people understand that. The problem is that he knew he was going to do this a long time ago, and he did not give caregivers, clients or their families sufficient time to make other arrangements. But instead he accepted new tenants, such as designer biker’s parent, and kept the facility going like it was going to be here forever. One can only surmise that If he had announced it earlier, then people may not have moved in, and would have started moving out. He would have made less money. So the first priority didn’t seem to be the welfare of people in their senior years, or their families or staff, but sucking the last dollar out of people until the last minute. THAT may be capitalism, but it’s not right.

    • Without personally knowing any of the details here… The owner may have been a huge jerk over this, I don’t know. But if you stop taking new patients, do you have the income/resources to keep the placing running properly? Would a large portion of the resident’s suddenly leaving leave them incapable of providing proper care for the people still left there? This is a tricky situation, I wouldn’t rush to push blame. No one should ever assume anything is going to be around forever. That’s just foolish.

      Having said all that it just amazes me how people want to perverse the law, and destroy all of the benefits of capitalism. What would this idiotic law do? Force an unsustainable business to remain open on a shoe string budget for 24 months? A business that is actually overseeing people’s lives – what if they can’t afford to properly care for these people? What is that situation like – when the state mandates it remains open but the owner doesn’t want to/can’t afford to. Great situation there, you’ve just changed things from bad to worse.

      • First, there’s been no proof that the business is unsustainable. There were some complaints by the owner (a real estate developer, natch) about an increased tax bill, buit that’s different from day to day operations.

        There’s also nothing in the proposed law that requires the operator to _stop_ taking new patients. If the current ownters want to stop taking new patients and potentially operate at a loss for two years, that’s their choice. Presumably the new patients would have contracts that more clearly spell out the risks and a negotiated timetable.

        And it’s rather common to prevent health care facilities in most states where facilities have certificates of need that they cannot close. This facility is not the type of facility under NY law that requires a CON (and thus the department of health can OK its closure because a long-term facility does not itself provide care), but I gather the purpose of the law is to put in a standstill for 2 years while the legislature debates whether these kinds of facilities should have more protections for the residents.