« Friday Links Charming Paint Peeler, RIP »

March 30, 2007

Marty DK's Fifth Avenue Housing Project

Since it was proposed earlier this year, the supported housing facility that the Fifth Avenue Committee wants to build on a municipal parking lot on 16th Street and 5th Avenue in Park Slope has been dividing the neighborhood. Of particular concern and debate among residents has been the composition of the potential residents. In an unexpected turn of events, Borough Prez Marty Markowitz has come out against the project in its current form. In order for the Beep to get on board with the project, the site’s zoning would have to be amended to accommodate families, including seniors, within the project; the role of the community advisory board would have to be restructured to his liking; the residential entrance to the building would have to be moved to Fifth Avenue; and parking garage would have to be incorporated into the building. We're unclear on whether this is a death knell for the project or just a bump in the road. Can anyone comment on the ramifications?
FAC Development at 575 Fifth Avenue [Brownstoner] GMAP

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/853

Comments

Why are you perpetuating the rumor that this facility would house sex offenders? I work in supportive housing and we do not specifically house sex offenders! Do you have information that this is who FAC is planning on serving? If not, I think you are being inflammatory in your posting.

Posted by: SPer at March 30, 2007 9:11 AM

i think we can all agree that this space would be far better off as housing, in any form, than car parking...nyc has done a horrific job managing neighborhood car traffic and building affordable housing and this is a perfect example.

Posted by: Brownstone Dreamin at March 30, 2007 9:18 AM

I agree about the 'sex offender' angle.
Those anti-project (this or similar ones) just raise this charge - it get repeated by media (papers and blogs) -
and then public believes must be true because they have read or heard it.
Media rarely bothers to see whether claim has any merit.... they are just 'reporting' what people claim.

As to project not having BPs support- means very little. Indirect influence at best. (Still don't know why anti-AY folks spend so much time on him either - has almost no say on matter).

Posted by: Anonymous at March 30, 2007 9:29 AM

Agreed with Sper, Mr. B.

You are perpetuating some of the BS being flung around the 'nabe by a minority of folks. The "sustainable" units are for folks with mental disabilities (which could be just chronic depression folks...) at the highest level of housing out of the shelter system. the rest of the units (20 out of 49) will be for folks earning less that $30K a year. Currently the FAC had ZERO sex offenders in it's assisted living facilities.

There is a concern over "who" will be allowed to move in, that's what FAC's Community Advisory Board is for and FAC has said they are committed to making it as open to the community as possible. CB7 even mandated it as such in it's recommendation.

What you are failing to highlight is the BP'si insane, though well intended, notion of rezoning this property to allow for a FAR bump allowing an additional 10,000 sq. ft. WTF!

First he's concerned about keeping the low rise character of this "embattled" 'nabe, next he wants to add several floors to the project (up to a total of 7 stories in the variance). Great, more density to a crippled and condo-glutted 15th St./16th St. corridor.

FAC's original plan (though I know limited their program to single room efficiency apts, not SROs) was contextual along 5th Ave and stepping down further along 16th St. to be the most contextual development in the area.

So now what...if this is killed by CPC, it goes back to DOT? If so, what new developer might be in the picture?

Perhaps out buddy Katan can move over from across the street?

Think about the implications folks...

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at March 30, 2007 9:30 AM

Fair enough. We hadn't realized that there was a zero chance of sex offenders living here, though don't think it was incorrect to have characterized the controversy as being about that. Anyway, we removed the reference.

Posted by: brownstoner at March 30, 2007 9:41 AM

Not entire certain, and I don't mean to be picky, but I believe the term is "Supportive Housing" and that almost always means housing for populations with very specific social service or medical needs. But in case you failed to have an ounce of humanity about these things, you maybe traumatized to know that a sex offender can live anywhere. Read today's Post.

Posted by: Clinton Hillster at March 30, 2007 9:51 AM

There is also more than 'zero-chance' that any new totally upscale condo building could have sex offenders too.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 30, 2007 9:54 AM

My bad not calling it "supportive housing." Thanks Clinton Hillster!

Needed more coffee.

How about "sustaining the supported housing?"

Mr. B, the FAC cannot exclude anyone from applying (assuming they are in the system), but "screens" all applicants with extensive background checks, interviews and figures out how they will "integrate into the community" (part of the basis of the program). While there may be ex-offenders or folks who have overcome substance abuse, CURRENTLY FAC has zero sex-offenders.

From everything I heard from FAC, keeping profiling aside, that would stay the same for 575 5th Ave...or would have.

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at March 30, 2007 10:15 AM

Dang, did it again...

"sustaining the supportive housing!!!"

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at March 30, 2007 10:18 AM

What does this mean for the UNTREATED, UNSUPERVISED, secret majority of home owning, difunctional, South Slopers who suffer from mental illness and routinely sexual molest their own children? MORE PARKING!!!!!! while shoping for cell phones and duct tape at one of the many 99 cent stores along 5th Avenue.

FACT: I saw the plans for 575 and there really was a secrete underground cinderblock bunker/ daycare center planned for the cellar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: 16th Street Action at March 30, 2007 10:29 AM

...I live in the neighborhood, and agree with (and was happy to hear about) SOME of Mr. Markowitz's recommendations, if in fact this is a good faith effort on his part to make the assisted living space work. And that's a big IF...

I always thought that the 49 exclusive SROs were a bad idea; having seniors and families in the building bring extra stability and security to all the activity in and around the building, probably lowers the odds or numbers of potential misadventures, not to mention that it brings fairness to those on a path of recovery who happen not to be single. (think about it - 49 single adults with serious life problems all living in 49 separate units under one roof. just seems like a bad idea from a common sense point of view.) also like the recommendation to put the entrance on 5th avenue.

Also love the idea of FAC forging a real community partnership and learning a hardass lesson from the shifty and unbecoming behavior they exhibited when trying to get this deal done without the participation of property owners/residents.

HOWEVER, I agree with a few posters above that the zoning change is ridiculous; there is absolutely no real sensible reason to make the structure 7 stories tall, and this, unfortunately, does smell of an impending backdoor deal with a developer.

The community should absolutely take issue with this outrageous idea - and do what needs to be done with the housing inhabitant makeup so the building doesn't need to be out of context...

I dunno - maybe these demands are a semi-veiled attempt to make the FAC facility become a dead issue so more money can be made elsewhere...

I also question the notion of putting underground parking in this area, and "leasing" it to nearby wealthy people. The parking is needed for EVERYONE, despite what others say, and this just privatizes a long-standing area that up til now has been public. Not fair, to say the least.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 30, 2007 10:42 AM

"suite sixteen" down the street sounds like it's being marketed to sex offenders.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 30, 2007 12:02 PM

One of the major problems in brownstone Brooklyn is car storage. Unlike other cities where service alleys or garages are available to folks who pay millions of dollars for houses,in Brooklyn there is no space for cars. You're on your own, tough, get lost.
It would be great to live without cars, but they are a necessity for many of us and the subways do not go everywhere. Actually on many a weekend lately they do not run at all. I think that parking is becoming the issue that dares not speak its name. To be for parking is to be for global warming or genocide.
We have to face this issue and provide a minimum of parking for people. I don't know, NY is so weird about anything practical. I'm California dreamin, let me tell you.

Posted by: Mini Driver at March 30, 2007 1:14 PM

Wanting something and getting it are very different issues. The ones who are Complaining about the proposed project have offered no legitimate alternatives Marty has made his recommendations based on the wants of a few without considering the realities involved. Nothing more than walking the Political tight wire. Pandering to everyone while committing to no one. If Marty, or anyone else, truly believes all that he said then maybe he should get Regas (who has sights set on this site), Boymelgreen, Katan and the rest of the vultures who continue to destroy our borough to do exactly what he has recommended that FAC do with this little piece of property - put parking and get community input into their projects. The Community fought a hard fight to down zone this area. To protect the Community, to save some of the Sunlight and trees and everything that brings people to Brooklyn. Now Marty wants to abandon all of that in the name of protecting a few parking spaces? The reality is that in order to achieve Mr. Markowitz' stated goals for this small piece of property, FAC (or whoever) would have to {at great expense (More tax dollars)} dig 30 feet deep and add an additional 4 or more floors (which would require a variance and more wasted tax dollars) to this project. More construction, more noise, more property damage, more pollution, more tax dollars, less peace, less Sunlight, less open space and less of the Brooklyn that we all know and love.
So who will really win. Oh there will definitely be some winners, but it won't be the Community at large or even the Borough. The winners will be a select few with there own agendas - Be they Political, Financial, or other. The one thing that is certain is that the Community will not benefit.
In my opinion - Be careful what you ask for.
This project should stay as it is. It is the best we can get without doing more harm.
Until proven Otherwise- Me thinks that those who are apposed have been swindled or have ulterior motives

Posted by: My2Cents at March 30, 2007 8:11 PM

This is all about Marty F-ing with Fac for there commitment to derail Atlantic Yards.
By doing this he makes believe that he is backing both the project and for the opponents. He wants to throw as many roadblocks in there way so that he and his boy Ratface can proceed untouched.

Posted by: questionsman at March 30, 2007 8:25 PM

I wonder how many of the clowns in support of this misguided project actually live on 16th Street?

Posted by: Anonymous at March 30, 2007 11:48 PM

And I Wonder how many of the A-holes opposed to it actually live any where near it or for that matter may actually be child molesters and Sociopaths
Bunch of hypocritical F...cks

Posted by: Kiebasa at March 31, 2007 12:51 AM

Sorry to burst your bubble Kiebasa but I live on 16th Street and no one supports it who lives on 16th. Before you start frothing at the mouth again, spend some time around the FAC's Warren Street project at night. You'll be in good company and feel right at home.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 31, 2007 8:37 AM

Hey Anonymouse,
Why don't you join me.
Or are you too busy trolling the internet. Looking for exactly what you claim to be afraid of.

Posted by: keibasa at March 31, 2007 11:49 AM

The above photo currently shows how "necessary" the parking lot is to shoppers of that section of Fifth Avenue. That lot is always 50% empty, and the cars taking up the spaces belong to the car service across the street. I would be interested in a comparison of the weekly dollar figures between the meters in the lot and the same number on say 7th Avenue. But If the community decides that parking is more important than supportive housing, so be it. Lets then build a truly large state of the art parking facility on the site. Let's allow the up-zoning that Marty recommends. I'm even for the city using it's powers of eminent domain to expand the lot up 16th Street if necessary starting with that god awful faux-stone piece of crap that stands next door.

Right now businesses on 5th Avenue above 9th Street service a clientele who seem to enjoy shopping at the many .99 cent stores. These shoppers don't even own cars! But that could all change.
If Fifth Avenue continues to attract more upscale businesses and especially restaurants like it has below 9th st. then you can bet that most of the under-built older single story commercial properties will be demo'ed for new more bulky buildings. Most likely 5 story condos with commercial spaces on the ground floors, just like what FAC proposed to build. I think a new parking facility will speed the gentrification process up and ultimately force these "junk stores" farther up the Avenue into Sunset Park.
These new stores will have shoppers who arrive by car... and they will need a safe place to park their Volvos... and we will be ready for them with our new 9 story parking facility!

Posted by: monorail at March 31, 2007 11:36 PM

As a property owner in this neighborhood, I've been mulling over all of this info the last few days, (reading everything I can), have vacillated on my opinions, and I'd now have to say that I'd rather see new condos with or without retail in this location than an assisted living facility.

It's just not fair to buy into a nabe that was pretty sad for a long time, put your kids in the public schools, see it become "hot" and then have an undesirable facility forced upon the hood with no real input. No one can honestly dispute the fact that this facility will have a negative impact on the value of surrounding properties.

Also, it is important to note that some of the supporters of this do not live in the immediate area, which i happen to know for a fact. I don't live on 16th street, but I'm not far from there, and I'd have to believe that 16th street residents by and large do not want this.

Michelle de la Uz probably has a heart of gold and the best of intentions, but I think this is a place that should be moved elsewhere where it's a better fit.

If the facility had been in place when I purchased, fine, that's life, but it's just an inappropriate location when so much money is at stake for the people who took a chance years ago and invested in this nabe with hard earned dollars.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 1, 2007 10:22 AM

An other anonymous who is afraid of the people who MIGHT move close by.
How telling! You are all afraid of the unknown or the boogie man while at the same time you want to hide your own dirty secrets.
The people who are going to be joining the Community are expected to have full disclosure of there past and ability to function in the community, while the closet pedophiles and Sociopaths sit around and pass judgment.
How f-ed up is that.

Posted by: My2Cents at April 1, 2007 11:02 AM

I just read the lengthy piece in the courier. Let me get this straight!
The City gives this under utilized piece of property to a reputable organization. The reputable organization, in an attempt put our tax dollars to good use, does everything that it is required to do. Out of no where, a bunch of local, hypocrites and everything-phobes join forces to drag this good organization through the street. All in the name of "Protecting our neighborhood"
Some interesting questions come to mind.
Who are these people and were have they been on other issues that may have affected the "neighborhood"?
Is any of them in anyway connected to Marty Markowitz or Bill Deblazio? Who of these "neighbors" stands to gain from the possible railroading of this project? And how? Any developers or mortgage or real estate brokers involved?
As Shakespeare once wrote "Me thinks they do protest too much."
I think that the neighbors who want so much information, disclosure and outreach from the City, HPD, and the tenants, should put there cards on the table.
Who are you? Who do you work for? Who works for you? Who are your friends and associates and what skeletons are in your closet? Tell the world everything that you are so afraid to share with the few who you believe are obligated to do so much for you.
Until then this whole 16th st. organization smells to kingdom come.

Posted by: WhatTheF at April 1, 2007 3:32 PM

Being one of those supporters "who does not live on 16th St.," I'd like to point out one factor that has not been covered here, nor in any article I have read...

This project affects ALL of South Park Slope, Greenwood Hts. even the northern part of Sunset Park.

WHY?

Well, if the proposed program works as well as the Warren St. facility, the residents of 575 5th Ave. will interact with ALL of these communities, not just the NIMBY folks on 16th St. around the corner from the proposed site (and I cannot believe I used the NIMBY term, crawford, door's open here for you!).

I have spoken to wide range of folks from the 3 communities I mentioned, less than 10% oppose the project, 15% have more questions, but think it's a good idea to use underutilized space (Mr. B's photo is very telling, that lot is NEVER more than 1/2 full, except when Grand Prospect Hall uses it, hardly a normal neighborhood biz) and the rest of us, while we had questions and pressed FAC hard, we got answers!

And, the FAC folks spent the better part of this Sat. on the corner of 16th St. and 5th Ave (and neighboring blocks, going door to door)AGAIN reaching out to folks, I heard they were well received.

SO, BIG PICTURE: supportive and affordable housing to add to a vibrant & mixed community OR the BP and CPC killing the plan to support the NIMBYs and DOT selling to another "for profit" developer and more luxury condos and the further gentrification of the South Slope and it's affect on the 2 other 'nabes I mentioned?

Your call...

PS. funny we have not heard from the opposition after the BP's recommendation. Perhaps not quite what you were looking for?

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at April 1, 2007 8:20 PM

Lost'n Bklyn is right on the money. I live on 16th going on 15 years.
First, saying that all residents are against this project is simply not true. I was at the public meeting where I recognized many familiar faces. After the presentation we, (my neighbors) all felt that FAC had put a great deal of time and energy into planning this project, and based on the presentation of the facts, their willingness to answer all questions, and their past reputation, we felt secure that they would do the right thing. That night, so many people had signed up to speak in favor of the proposal that the CB 7 Chairperson in the interest of fairness, specifically requested that if anyone wished to speak out now against the plan, to come forward... and that's when things got painfully embarrasing... shouting, cursing-the level of ignorance was appalling to say the least.

Second issue-My property values will be affected in a negative way. Nope, not going to happen. The 8th Avenue Armory women's shelter (with room for 90 persons) is a good example. It has not discouraged recent home sale prices to skyrocket, now soaring above $1.3 million dollar mark. These are women, who are homeless, who are just entering the system, just beginning to receive social services.
Finally, the "children are in danger" issue. Ask the teachers and parents at PS107 right across the street from the Armory how many children they have "lost" to the women at the shelter. The school is thriving. There is a waiting list. You can't even get in any more unless you are in the zone.

We shouldn't let a small group of hate filled bigots preying on others ignorance of the facts, to scare people into signing some inflammatory petition and hijacking our good will. They do not represent the majority of the 16th Street neighbors I know.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 1, 2007 11:06 PM

I live nearby --on prospect ave-- and I find some of the arguments against this facility basically repugnant. Some of what I've heard is predjudice akin to racism, except for some reason its OK to say such things about mentally ill. These are disabled people that need help.
For those people fearful about safety, please check the facts, do not just give in to fear.
For those people concerned about property values, realize that living in a city means that for the greater good, some people have to sacrifice. This may sound callous, but think about it--all decisions cannot benefit all people. This is what city planning is all about. To wall off your neighborhood and say "this is ours, keep your problems out" (NIMBY) is completely anathema to what a city is for. That's not to say you shouldn't advocate for your interests, but just keep in mind this isn't really that bad, and in my opinion sounds like a real nice facility actually.

Posted by: Alex at April 2, 2007 12:55 PM

Once you have kids and own property, you think about things a little differently. Doesn't mean you are less of a person or a card-carrying Republican but it does mean you concerns change. No one with the 16th Street Action group is against the project per se, although we're all sick and tired of construction. There's more of it on 16th than anywhere else in Brooklyn and it isn't good for the health of the residents. Assuming the project will go through, the question is whether it can be amended to better fit with the family-oriented atmosphere. We all would support low-income families or the elderly moving into the unit. The concern is the number of SR0s which doesn't encourage any roots to be planted.

Posted by: Jeremy at April 2, 2007 4:19 PM

Jeremy,
You, unlike many who are opposed to this project, sound like a very reasonable person. With that in mind I take what you say very seriously. Just the same I think you are making some big mistakes in your thought process.
"Roots" - I do not believe that the people who are overpaying for luxury condo's, will be planting any "roots".
Many have bought on speculation and others will end up being foreclosed. So the roots issue doesn't hold much water.
As for changes to the project (Amended)-What changes would you like? The City and State are the ones that have determined how to allocate the money to be used on this piece of Property. Do we really want to waste many more years and Tax dollars to try to please everyone. Just look at the World Trade Center- 6 years and thanks to City and State, and private interests we still have a big hole in the ground. FAC unlike any City, State or private Developer, has a tremendous track record of doing well by the Community.
The last thing I want is for that property to be left to in the hands of the City, State or a private Developer.
End of story

Posted by: My2Cents at April 2, 2007 8:58 PM

My2cents
What a stupid judgmental comment. "People are either buying on speculation or will be foreclosed" What the hell do you know? IT is insulting and arrogant. Just for that comment alone, I cannot seriously consider anything else you write.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 3, 2007 8:01 AM

Hey another Anonymous with an inferiority complex,
First let me amend my remark "many of the people who are buy the luxury condo's"
You should really stop with the arrogance remarks because it's wearing thin. It shows your true paranoia and who you really are. If you really want to hide you should be careful what you say about others. Any lawyer will tell you that you should not develop a pattern of hypocrisy when spewing your venom.

Posted by: My2Cents at April 3, 2007 8:59 AM

as a single person with no kids who rents her apartment, i have to laugh at jeremy's comment that people who own property and have kids "think a little differently" about "things". just because you don't "think differently" doesn't mean you're RIGHT. new york is a city where renters are equally vested in their neighborhoods and livelihoods, and i'm pretty sure that the "owners" of 2 and 3 family homes wouldn't find them nearly as affordable without our rental incomes to support their mortgages. people who live in studio apartments (low income or other) aren't discouraged from planting roots or starting families - they just move when they decide to expand. the funny thing about roots - you need to water them and feed them to make them grow, and that's just what supportive housing does for its residents.

Posted by: chucking at April 3, 2007 6:06 PM

I do not consider myself to be an unreasonable person but do feel myself to be a charitable person. I think there are issues with how this project was pushed through without input from the residents. I and many of my neighbors support affordable housing on our block, or any block. It is truly the fact that 39 studio apartments (less than 400 square feet) will be the only type of units in the building. It just doesn't fit with the existing community at all which is very family oriented. The plan doesn't make sense in its current form.

Posted by: 16thRes at April 3, 2007 6:07 PM

It is amazing to see the names that are being thrown at the residents who have questions about this project. If you are willing to give the FAC a blank check to do anything they wish that is your business.
The people who have to live near the proposed facility have unanswered questions. At the 3 previous rushed meetings that started this process the FAC has either not answered questions or given vague assurances that they will resolve the matter at some later date.
Have any of you spoken with the neighbors at the Warren Street Facility?
I have. Many of them are not as happy with the FAC as some on this blog are. I keep hearing how the community advisory board is going to handle any problems with the community but can one person here explain how the board is going to work? Why wasn't it already put in place? I hear about screening but can anyone explain the screening process? Anyone? We know 60% of the people in the facility will have mental disabilities. What will the FAC do if someone stops taking their medication?
It is true that some tenants may just be depressed but it is also true that some may have schizophrenia or other serious mental disorders. Do we know for sure? Can anyone tell me? Some of these people had issues with drugs. What happens if they become active in addiction again? (Before Mr. Me-thinks states how we don't know if condo owners are doing the same thing I submit that a condo owner or home owner who is a drug user will probably be defaulting on his mortgage long before someone is removed from this SRO) If someone becomes a problem in the community how will it be resolved? All these questions are valid questions that have not been answered by anything approaching a detailed manner. The names that some people are calling other community members who want more information is alarming to me. The only intolerance I see is on this and other blogs. It is intolerance is for anyone who has a different outlook than what the FAC wants. If your neighbors are fearful then help them understand don't belittle them for speaking their mind. You want to know who we are and what our agenda is? Are you kidding me? We are your neighbors who have invested in this community with our blood and sweat. Excuse us if we don't take the FAC's talking points and go silently into the sunset. If you don't agree with someone is your only strategy to attack them personally? It will be very interesting to come back to these blogs a year or two after the SRO is built and see how things turned out.
I am a resident on the block and have personally contacted the FAC. They sent me a nice picture of the proposed facility and a one page pamphlet. If I am wrong for wanting more information than that that, I don't know what to say to anyone. Once this facility is built it is there for good. All the people who are so gung ho for this project better hope the FAC delivers because I think they are just regurgitating FAC talking points rather than truly looking for facts. I went to each FAC meeting in the last month and gave them the benefit of the doubt. I don't think they have given us enough info and wish they would be more forth coming. Does that make me a bad person? Who is being intolerant now?

Posted by: 16th Street Resident at April 6, 2007 7:25 PM

16th Street Resident, Or is it anonymouse? Whatever! Excuse me for interrupting your duel with whoever. I'd like to step in and entertain the voyeur in you.
I am a long time resident, a professional and a mother who has many concerns about the way our neighborhood has been treated. I've been following this story and this blog and am now beginning to see the light. You and your friends have every right to ask questions. You do not have the right to pass out fliers that highlight your opinion in an attempt to strike fear in others. It's one thing to ask questions out of concern it's a different thing to ask question which inflame or to only be satisfied when you get the answers that you want. It's as if everyone who is not completely in agreement with you is being cross examined at the witness stand by an over zealous lawyer. That's not "looking for facts". That's looking for trouble or a specific answer or out come.
I have taught my children to be tolerant and that sometimes in life you won't get the answers that you'd like. Your web site and your fliers are inflammatory and will do nothing to help this Community in the long term. You do, however, pose an interesting question. What will happen in 2 years? People like you, are already hoping for failure so as to justify your position, while others (many who have similar concerns) are hoping for some thing good to come of all this. If this project is a success we all win, if it fails we all lose. That's the difference between you and the rest of us. You hide and stir the shit in the background while playing both sides against the middle. Hoping to either benefit from a successful outcome or gloat at it's failure.
You have your rights and so do the rest of us. That includes anyone who may be moving into the FAC building at 575 Fifth. They, to, will have the same protection of the law that you revel in. To ask how long it will take to evict someone is an absurd question. Go ask a Judge in housing court and see what he will tell you. You do not have the right to make those decisions or to demand a time line. Talk about intolerance. How would you like it if someone arbitrarily decided to deny you of your rights to due process. You shouldn't be passing judgment on others. If you want to live in a place were someone can decide who, what, where and when others can move in, you might want to move to a gated community. Or maybe a prison. This is still a free country and even people who you don't like have rights.
You can say what you want - That's your right - But you do not have the right to impose your opinions and prejudices on everyone else who lives in the area.
Finally I'd like to say that many of us are not "Gung ho" for this or any project, but we are satisfied with what FAC has done and continues to do. On the other hand we are very displeased to know that people like you want to "regurgitate" your elitist and bigoted views.

Posted by: Sick&Tired at April 7, 2007 10:11 PM

Nobody here mention how deceiving this project actually started, MICHELLE DE LA UZ actually collected signatures by the corner of 5th ave and 16th st. asking support from the neighbourhood for LOW INCOME HOUSING. (?) As someone mention, take a stroll by Warren St. and just imagine living here, I actually live on 13th st. where they have one of the CINDERELLA project, this is for housing low income folks,most of the people living there are very nice, but the others make my neighbours and my family living hell by the screaming,loud music,profanities and destruction of our properties...(I got video tapes)So there it goes for all this people here who call the victims of MICHELLE DE LA UZ elitist by just being plain ignorant, those are the real NIMBYs.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 15, 2007 9:15 AM

« Friday Links Charming Paint Peeler, RIP »

March 30, 2007

Marty DK's Fifth Avenue Housing Project

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions