The Globe’s Evan Allen has a story today about the proposal to turn the former fire station near the corner Beacon and Washington Streets in Waban into studio apartments for ten chronically homeless individuals. (Feisty TAB Blog discussion here.)
Allen attended last week’s community meeting at the Waban library which proceeds a bigger meeting on Thursday which will include representatives from MetroWest Collaborative and the Pine Street Inn.
Here’s a quote from one attendee..
“We live in a community where our kids walk to school, they walk to get ice cream or go to the deli. And I want to know why we shouldn’t be worried about our kids walking on their own through the community” if the housing proposal is approved, Jill Balmuth said Thursday night during a packed public meeting in the Waban Library Center. The tenants, Balmuth said to a round of applause, “are not gonna be accepted in this community. So I’m not sure it’s not fair on either side.
and here’s something entirely different from someone else..
“I would like to think that our community would be willing to step in and support people who need our help so much more than other people do,” said David Jones, who also received an ovation. “When you think about this from the point of view of human rights, these people are suffering, these people deserve a better life.”
Gee, I’m pretty sure being homeless isn’t fair either.
Also, the woman in the Globe article who worried about the safety of her “young” daughter almost had me until learning that “young” meant someone who is old enough to come home “late at night from work in our dark driveway.”
Uh, maybe get some lights for that driveway?
I think my favorite quote is the person who wants them to go to Waltham, as opposed to Waban which is a “family” neighborhood. Huh?
This is the neat old firehouse practically at the corner of Washington St, across from Newton-Wellesley Hospital, right? That’s really on the edge of Waban. And how much of Waban is concerned about letting their kids walk to Waban Sq?
I’d be worried about sex offender registry people, too, but if the management is willing to rule out Level 1 sex offenders as well as Levels 2 and 3, that’s probably less sex offenders than the general population.
@Julia: You are correct, this is really on the edge of Waban, closer to a number of commercial properties, Lower Falls and 128 than Waban Square.
An explanation of the sex offender levels are here.
Pine St seems to be willing to negotiate, so I think thats a big plus.
I love the headline: Fear and/or compassion in Waban.
So, if you oppose the project your a fearmonger and if your in favor then your full of compassion.
How about if you oppose the project you care about the safety of others and if your for the project your naive….Labeling goes 2 ways.
Tom, it’s tempting to generalize in these types of discussions but I would think that if you plan on running for mayor, you might want to resist suggesting that people who support this project are naive. I suspect that most people concerned care about the safety of others; they just might not share your concerns that the prospective residents are going to cause harm.
Just curious… Who owns this building now? Does it generate property taxes? Will it generate property taxes if the project is approved?
Hospice of the Good Shepherd.
Assessed at a little over $1 million
Gail,
I was making a point that offsets the headline. It’s obviously not my feeling, there are dozens of reasons why people want or don’t want the project. The headline, however, is saying it’s fearmongering if you don’t like it and compassion if you do. Just trying to make a point, thats all.
I’m not going to pass judgment on anyone because I’ve heard from several trusted sources that the folks from Pine Street Inn seem to have flubbed some critical parts of their presentation to Waban residents by not crossing every T or dotting every I about what residents would be placed in the old firehouse. This is disappointing and a bit astonishing because few social welfare non profits are as highly regarded in this area as the staff and programs at Pine Street Inn. I know some of the staff at Pine Street and they provide high professional leadership and services in a challenging environment.
I’ve done a bit of volunteer work at Pine Street and I think that brings me to the crux of what I want to say. Homeless people at Pine Street as elsewhere seem to wind up in these refuge centers for a variety of reasons. People can be homeless for countless reasons that range from drug and alcohol addiction to depression and economic dislocations. Not a few wind up in places like Pine Street because they lost their homes and jobs because of health problems and health bills they couldn’t afford. I’m perplexed as to why the sex offender issue is playing such a prominent role here because I strongly doubt that it is any higher percentage wise among homeless people than it is in the general population. It’s kind of like the now debunked belief that pedophilia is concentrated in the gay community.
I did see homelessness up front almost three years ago when I was working on the 2010 Census as an enumerator. One of our first tasks was to go to various places around Newton on the first day of the Census to try and get a ballpark figure of how many homeless people were in the area. We found more than 100 people in cars, tents or lean twos up on Recreation Road off of 128 just before the Mass Pike, in the woods at Calvary Cemetery in Waltham and along the Charles River. This was at the height of the recession and we found3 or 4 families that had lost their homes because of job or health reasons. None of them ever thought they would be in that kind of situation.
I guess it irks me how people get stigmatized and dehumanized by adverse by events and conditions in their lives over which they most often have no control. I guess it shouldn’t surprise me that many members of Congress and state legislatures want to require drug testing and intense monitoring for anyone receiving unemployment and food assistance or any kind of government assistance aimed at those at the bottom of the economic ladder. Funny, they never want high end recipients of government largess to be tested including wealthy absentee supposed farmers who grow nothing on their land.
@Tom: The headline was intended to reflect the two quotes from the meeting that stood out to me in the Globe story. Balmuth is very much afraid of the potential residents here. Jones urged compassion. Both comments, according to the article, received applause.
I chose to add the “and/or” because I recognize that there are a lot of mixed emotions surrounding this issue.
What I find disturbing, and one of the reasons I am running for Mayor, is the lack of transparency in the allocation of CDBG, HOME and ESG funds granted by HUD that are supposed to support the creation of affordable housing in Newton. As I was reviewing the packet for tonight’s Planning & Development Board meeting, I discovered that the planning department appears to be taking the unprecedented step of diminishing the role of the Board of Aldermen in the approval process.
Take a look at page 4 of Draft Citizen Participation Plan attached to the June 13, 2013 memo submitted with the agenda. The relevant excerpt from the 2009 Citizen Participation Plan reads as follows:
The proposed Draft Citizen Participation Plan deletes the above-referenced language and substitutes the following in its place:
Regrettably, the proposed draft comes without much in the way of explanation of this diminished emphasis on the Board of Aldermen’s role in reviewing and approving the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan. But in my opinion it is part of a disturbing trend regarding the administration’s efforts to limit, rather than expand or improve citizen participation in the review and approval of the use of these funds.
Although I have another meeting at the same time, I am going to try to attend tonight’s Planning & Development Board meeting to learn more about the changes proposed to the city’s Citizen Participation Plan.
Thanks Greg, apparently I needed more explaining.
Bob, when did you volunteer? I was in the late eighties?
I have to say that in the 8 months I was there, 95% of the tenants had a drinking or a drug problem depending their age. The reason why they were homeless, was of their addiction. I didn’t know of any innocent bystanders down on their luck (not to say there weren’t any) who are just passing by.
Tom – you probably weren’t there in the midst of a major recession.
MGWA
Good Point!!!!
I just received the following email from Mayor Warren. I was dumbstruck and deeply disappointed. I had hoped at least that he would not truncate the process and make a decision before the community had a chance to speak at the public meeting on Thursday night of this week. I know that my colleagues and I have heard from many Waban residents who support this project, and will no doubt share my disappointment.
The Mayor did the right thing.
There’s certainly a need for affordable housing. especially among the elderly, young families and affordable group homes for developmentally challenged adults. The project as proposed was a controversial stretch to say the least.
@Terry: Can you (or someone else) explain the controversial elements, separate from the concerns from neighbors about the caliber of the tenants? I’m not suggesting that wasn’t a real concern for some, but were there additional issues?
I would think there is a better (and equally noble) way to spend $3,ooo,ooo of taxpayer funded federal/state/local grant money than to create 9 studio apartments for the homeless.
I do understand many of the neighbors specific concerns raised at the recent meeting but I do not understand at all the issue raised by some. Let’s put the specifics of this proposal in this neighborhood aside for a second.
Many people seem to say, in general, maybe OK to elderly, young families and developmentally challenged adults but no way to putting mentally ill or homeless men in any nearby facility .
Given that we have both mentally ill and homeless men in our community. What are our big picture principles in dealing with these issues. Are people saying no not in this neighborhood, but they’re OK for a different neighborhood in Newton? Or are they saying no they don’t belong in Newton at all.
Either way, I’ve got some some real problems. If it’s the first case then we’re saying that certain villages are privileged and other aren’t. If its the second case, then we’re saying we’re a privileged town and so we’ll dump our “problems” on less privileged towns and not do our part of dealing with those issues.
Since the Firehouse/Pine Street proposal appears to now be dead. I’d urge the town to wrestle with these bigger picture philosophical questions. What exactly will the city’s operating principles in siting future similar facilities within Newton. Until we figure that out together as a city, every future proposal to deal with any of these issues will just be reduced to who can yell loudest. That’s about the worst possible way to decide anything.
Could it be that Terry just skimmed the beginning of the mayor’s letter and missed “The proposal calls for serving a population that already exists in our community but has not been well served in the past.”
So while we would do well to remember that the elderly, young families and adults with developmental challenges need affordable housing, we must acknowledge and commit to serve this particular population, specifically because they are people who already exist in our community, and precisely because in the past they have been under served.
Jerry and Marie, the city’s draft Annual Action Plan for FY14 identifies the need for shelter, transitional and permanent housing for chronically homeless people as a priority need and a priority for funding with federal CDBG, HOME and ESG funds that Newton is eligible for because it has a demonstrated need to serve homeless and low and moderate income households. The Engine 6 (2042-2044 Beacon Street) proposal is specifically identified in the plan, which has been a work in progress since winter of 2012-2013, as addressing the need for permanent housing for chronically homeless people. The need is there already, and I for one am sorely disappointed by the Mayor’s withdrawal of support for this desperately needed affordable housing.
Hmm – Given that, I’m not sure why the “we don’t want housing for homeless people” objections carry any weight. I’m discouraged, depressed and despirited at the thought that yelling loudly is an effective way to reverse any policy or plan that you don’t like.
Like you Ted, I’m particularly disappointed in the mayor pulling the plug in the middle of the public process .
Greg,
The neighbors felt excluded out of the process. They got one or two meetings to talk about this, they felt it was a done deal behind closed doors. They felt rushed and they felt they had no say and there wasn’t any transparency in the issue.
Tom – then why did the mayor pull the plug rather than opening the discussion and have more meetings.
Very bad move by Setti Warrren especially in an election year.
why would anyone want to have suspicious / dangerous individuals ( yes mostly younger men by default ) in their comunity is beyond belief. Have we ran out of women, children and elderly to help out? how about some veterans?? NO. We need drug addicts and sex offenders and other violent individuals to ‘politically correct our midst’ with?? maybe some housing for detainees from guantanamo again??
Most people work their lives to move their kids to a safe country/ neighborhood to live in, away from the cancer of crime and drugs, but seems like some surreal elitists with overflowing “compassion” and not a shred of common sence decided that waban is just not integrated enough. Apparently we need to diversify it with a few criminals amongst our kids, apparently we dont pay enough taxes and our homes aren expensive enough to keep us away from having that which we try our hardest to stay away from, forced upon us by these ” compassionate do gooders”