Rev. Green Speaks at Glens Falls Common Council Meeting
Glens Falls, January 23, 2007
Mayor Akins, Honorable Members of the Council:
As I understand this meeting, it is at least in part “to discuss the feasibility of the City purchasing the Henry Hudson Town Houses complex and relocating residents to alternative housing elsewhere in the region.”
The last time I spoke here concerning the Henry Hudson Townhouse issue, it was as you were considering the question of moving some of that residential complex to a new site at the Murrey Street Playground. At that time, I spoke on behalf of members of the First Baptist Church, residents of all five wards of the City who had gathered for discernment and prayer on the matter of housing, and it is in that capacity I speak to you again this evening.
“The church’s concern for the quality of housing stems from the belief that each person is precious in the sight of God and should have the opportunity to grow and develop his or her potential to the fullest extent possible. This development is threatened whenever social and economic forces dehumanize or degrade people or place them in living situations which are physically or socially hazardous to them.”1
We speak out of our faith, realizing that in the public square all do not share our particular faith commitments, but in the hope that our faith’s concern for the welfare of every person is shared by a broad segment of our City’s residents, of every religion and of no religion.
We agree, as we said last fall, that the physical condition and the social environment of the present Henry Hudson Town Houses are degrading and dehumanizing to those who live there, and that the dilapidated and unsafe conditions do not bode well for the wider community.
I would ask the Council to consider that much of what we said to you last fall is relevant to this ongoing discussion, even though the particular proposal then under consideration was set aside. Namely, that the primary concern when considering what to do with the complexes, must be the lives of the persons who are living in them. Also of great concern is the impact of the complex and its residents, wherever located, on its neighbors and on the well-being of the City and region as a whole.
We have continued to insist that planners and managers be held accountable for their assurances of better safety, maintenance, monitoring, energy efficiency and opportunity for residents to participate in the decision making processes that will affect their lives. We have continued to judge proposals for rebuilding by their consideration for the needs of the residents during the time of transition.
We understand that a private real-estate transaction is pending on the complexes involving its sale to Evergreen Partners, and that they have plans in development, which they have worked out in extensive conversations with City police and fire officials, the District Attorney, and the Planning Board (legal action of Mr. Cefalu, and perhaps others, notwithstanding). Evergreen Partners, furthermore, has begun inspecting the property, its conditions, and has had discussions with residents, and has made assurances that those who have been good neighbors and are in compliance with their current leases will not lose their homes, and that the disruptions attending any project of this scope will be kept as few and as minimal as possible.
Evergreen Partners’s actions, in working with residents and public officials through what is now their second proposal for renovating the complex, have shown that this prospective new neighbor has great potential to be a positive corporate citizen of Glens Falls. The fact is that Evergreen has shown great commitment to the City. When they first approached the Administration, they were told, as I understand from the Mayor, that it would be preferred that they consider pursuing an alternative site for the complex. When they had developed some significant proposals, they were turned away again by this council. At that time, following the defeat of the Murrey Street motion, several members of this council (I believe Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Diamond, and Mr. Bush were among them) voiced their feeling that the vote against the Murrey Street proposal was not a vote against Evergreen but against the Administration. There was talk of council members sending a letter to Evergreen Partners to that effect, and many of the residents of the Murray Street neighborhood who vigorously opposed that plan, said that they thought that the complexes should be rebuilt at their current site. To Evergreen’s credit they did not take their $25 million in investment and other capital and move on. They worked with our public officials to develop a new plan. Just last week I witnessed how when faced with criticism and skepticism from some members of the public, the Partners' representative received the Zoning Board of Appeals ruling with grace, even though it was not entirly in his favor, and resolved to go back to the drawing board to comply with the Zoning Board’s requirements.
As it stands then, the city has the potential to gain a new and good corporate citizen at the expense of an old and bad one. The city stands to gain the construction revenue of a massive rebuilding project. The city stands to gain a new complex of safer, more efficient, more secure residences that provide shelter for the disabled, senior citizens and low-income working class people. The residents stand to gain a landlord who will treat them with human dignity and respect, housing that they are not ashamed to raise their children in, and homes that they can afford to heat and that won’t fall in on them.
Why at this juncture, the City would consider buying this complex, is to us unfathomable. Where will a city in financial straits find the funding to buy the property without breaking the backs of taxpayers in all five wards? Where will the city find the human resources and expertise to manage this complex in a way that respects the needs and dignity of its clients, when it cannot even manage to send understandable water bills? How will the city manage relocation of residents “to alternative locations in the region” when every indication is that a family of four needs to make at least $17 per hour to even rent a home anywhere in the lower Adirondacks. And how will the city provide transportation from those remote places to the services that they need here in Glens Falls and by public transportation to county offices?
While it is true that relocation of low-income residents, so-called "gentrification," has happened in other places (some sitting behind me may even be able to give you statistics), I know from experience as a pastor formerly living in Washington DC, that it is seldom accomplished without tremendous loss of capacity for self-sufficiency among families who are already near the edge. It is seldom accomplished without a dehumanizing loss of independence and self-determination of the persons and families so moved. As people of faith concerned primarily for the human dignity of every person, this is simply unacceptable in our city.
Mr. Busch, we are a church located in Ward 1 – a working-class church in a working-class ward. Following the conclusion of the last meeting on this issue, you spoke to me and told me that you had come that night prepared to vote in favor of the proposal, but had been moved with compassion by an old man who sat at this table and cried before the Council over the loss of his boyhood basketball court. You said that night, “Surely, Rev. Green, as a minister, you can understand compassion.” Surely, Mr. Busch, I can. So, I am calling you to account tonight, on the grounds of compassion. The residents kept in limbo for four or five years while a plan is developed and then moved to unknown parts: they won’t likely come and cry at this table. But they will come and cry in my office, and they will cry when their children go hungry because they had to pay too much for heat. I will see them when they call for food, when they come in from the woods behind strip malls in Queensbury. I will see them when they cry, and so tonight I speak for them. If you are a man of compassion, a man of the people, a man who seeks to serve the family man who’s trying to scrape by, then you will not allow this proposal, or any like it, to stand.
I thank you all, for your time tonight.
1 American Baptist Policy Statement on Housing.
Updated: 2007-Mar-07