« 'Queer' Guy Snags Washington Avenue B-stone 20 Henry Street: Interior Demo Proceeding Apace »

April 13, 2007

City Planning Considers 5th Ave Housing Facility

575fifth041307.jpg
Two weeks after Marty Markowitz came out against it, the Department of City Planning held a hearing on Wednesday night to discuss the "supported housing facility" that has been proposed for the city-owned site (now a parking lot) at 575 Fifth Avenue. This issue has electrified and divided the South Slope community since it was announced at the beginning of the year, so the standing-room-only crowd of 150-plus people was no surprise. While those against the project made up only about 20 percent of the audience, Chair Amanda Burden decide to alternate speakers from the "for" and "against" camps. Some of those against the project gave thoughtful input, saying that they wanted to see more outreach by FAC to the immediate community, a clear understanding of the Community Advisory Board (CAB) and more transparency by FAC on what the screening process will be and consideration on some of the BP's and CB7's recommendations. Another contingent of the opposition had things like this to say about the potential inhabitants of the facility: "Park Slope is the most liberal thinking place in Brooklyn, but we don't want those people here."
Marty DK's Fifth Avenue Housing Project [Brownstoner] GMAP
FAC Development at 575 Fifth Avenue [Brownstoner]
Photo by Kate Leonova for Property Shark




Posted by Brownstoner at 9:29 AM | Comments (14)
Categories: Brooklyn, Development, Park Slope

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/938

Comments

I'm not surprised by that comment. No real forward-thinking liberals would like in those energy inefficient single-family brownstones. Park Slope is full of hypocrites.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 13, 2007 10:47 AM

I understand that these people need help but given the concerns of the community.. what do they get?

Posted by: live on 15th St at April 13, 2007 11:55 AM

They get the right to live in a society where the government sometimes helps the needy, feeds the hungry, houses the homeless, and looks out for more than just the bottom line.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 13, 2007 11:58 AM

I hope those liberal nimbys invite their new neighbors to join the coop.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 13, 2007 12:04 PM

God forbid "these people" move into such a provincial kingdom like the simply illustrious and pure Park Slope. Give me a break. Is anyone on this site willing to admit that Park Slope is as popular as it is because it is not as populated with "these people" as other 'nabes like Bed-Stuy, which is chock full of "these people"?

Is this project being blocked because parents don't want their children around "these people"? Have any Park Slopers even bothered to TALK to "these people" before?

Posted by: X at April 13, 2007 1:27 PM

Where all the posts about the wonderful diversity of pslope?

Posted by: Anonymous at April 13, 2007 1:36 PM

A lot of slopers who live near the site of the proposed FAC development turned out to the various hearings to support the project. It would be a mistake to generalize about the beliefs and attitudes of Slope residents, or even south slope residents, based on third hand accounts of what some individuals who live near the project said in opposition.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 13, 2007 1:43 PM

yes , I thought b'stoner picking thst comment out of context was gratuitous for him. Lesser websites maybe. the issue involves 49 studio apts, which is what FAC wants v. bigger apts for families and elderly which is what neighbors prefer since it is a family oriented area.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 13, 2007 2:39 PM

"b'stoner picking thst comment out of context was gratuitous for him."

Anon 2:39pm.

Well, perhaps, but there were "those type of Slopers" who were not just concerned about family oriented units, more interaction with FAC and such.

There has been a TON of fear mongering, shit slinging and quite frankly, outright bigotry from neighbors in the 15th/16th St. area. Not all (this is not a large group in opposition, majority approves of the FAC proposal), but enough to make me NOT want to be associated with these "neighbors."

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at April 13, 2007 4:24 PM

I have to agree with lostmymindinbrooklyn, The people who are spewing there crap about "these people" should think about the fact that they themselves are not assimilating to the nade. Instead they want the nabe to assimilate to there misguided, and in some cases, bigoted attitudes.

Posted by: LightningRod at April 13, 2007 8:10 PM

a picture is worth 1000 word.
the only time that eye sore is full is when the car service around the corner is slow or when the catering hall on prospect has an event. that catering hall has should be paying the area residents for for all the hassle involved when it is full.
the proposed building and it's residents are a welcome addition to the nabe

Posted by: PictureThis at April 14, 2007 8:20 AM

"lostinbrooklyn" you have consistently misrepresented the position of those who would like to see the plan altered by resorting to mischaracterizations, name calling, and swearing. it's pretty sad. you don't do you or your FAC pals much good when you start spouting garbage. stick to the facts and avoid the hyperbole you claim to be concerned about from the opposition.

Posted by: John718 at April 15, 2007 10:41 AM

Hey John718, or 16th st. res, or anonymouse, or whatever you want to call yourself,
You want facts: "16th st action" and all those involved never existed until a bunch of NIMBY's decided to try to stop this project. Nothing they have done has been above board or transparent. They hand out, misleading and inflammatory questionnaires. With no contact names or numbers. The return address is nothing more than a street address at Methodist Hospital. Is Methodist Hospital aware that it's property is being used by this surreptitious organization? All with the sole purpose of dividing the nabe. They and you (just like the rest of us) have a right to ask questions, but not when they are not being asked in a forthright manner. The questions are never ending and they don't really want to hear the answers. Everything done by these people is designed to inflame not find answers. Ex: "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?"
What happens when you go off your drugs? What right do I have to question your mental stability or your ability to be a functioning part of the community? They ask questions that even the legal system can't answer. Even those answers are vague. If you have a problem with that - As do many of us - Then maybe you should use your considerable knowledge and energies to rectify those problems. You won't because you and others like you live for those gray lines. It gives you the opportunity to never commit to anything and still reap the benefits of either side.
Here is another interesting one: "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"
"I submit" Sounds very legal, but not true. There are many drug addicts and loons who own properties and still manage to stay one step ahead of the bill collectors. Besides if you know anything about the law you should know that it is actually faster (obviously not fast enough for people like you) to evict someone than it is to foreclose on them. I bet you knew that. In fact I bet that if you were the one being foreclosed on you would know how best to drag the process.
"Spouting Garbage" & "hyperbole" - You should know about both.
Those opposed keep spouting about "their" issues with no regard for the issues of the rest of the community.
Why don't you stop playing games that divide the community and just come out and admit that you are a hipocritical, bigot.

Posted by: JohnK at April 15, 2007 11:23 AM

PictureThis, good point about the parking lot, but unfortunately (IIRC) the plan contains even more parking, just in a garage. Completely unnecessary parking.

Posted by: JF at April 15, 2007 3:42 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions