Representatives from the Department of Social Services and the non-profit shelter managers Breaking Ground came to explain and defend their Safe Haven shelter project at 320 Pearl Street to Community Board 1 — long after the community had already mobilized against it. Their plan now is to open in Q1 of 2025.

From the very first minutes of the meeting, CB1 members made it clear that the board and the neighbors do not support this type of shelter at this location — right against the Peck Slip School. “This siting is inappropriate and we have said that from the beginning,” said committee chair Pat Moore. The Safe Haven shelter is transitional housing designed with low barriers to entry — residents have no curfew, do not have to be sober or clean, and there is minimal intake requirements. Safe Havens, and there is also one coming to 105 Washington in Fidi, are designed for street homeless most resistant to shelters.

This is exactly what CB1 members are opposed to. “Why can’t we have a different type of shelter? Women with babies? Families?” asked board chair Tammy Meltzer.

To back it up a bit, a lot was learned about what they are calling the South Strand Safe Haven — it is against social service law to give out the address — since this is the first time the department had presented to the community board since the project was announced in June:

• 24-hour security
• 24-hour aid staff
• Clinical staff: social workers, case managers, onsite psychiatry, medication monitoring
• Three meals a day
• Courtyard outdoor space
• Daily activties for residents
• average stay is six months

“Our job is to keep them inside,” said the representative from Breaking Ground, who said the average time these folks have been on the street is eight years. “Street homelessness is a chronic issue and the only way to solve it is Safe Haven. They have already voted with their feet not to use the shelter system — we are meant to be a place where they want to stay.”

The city’s street homeless outreach team, Downtown Goddard, has estimated that they have 400 clients — people with whom they have relationships — who call “home” south of 14th Street. The hotspots for that area are around Industry Kitchen at the Seaport, Fulton and Gold, and the Fulton transit hub. The agency also does outreach at the end of subway lines, and we have two in CB1 — the Fulton hub and the terminus of the 1 train at South Ferry. At those lcoations, they have been in touch with 2800 street homeless in the past year.

The board members also learned — thanks to very direct questioning — that the contract is not yet signed for the facility. The process starts with a request for proposals from the city, and then landlords and providers make a plan together for a specific site. In this case, the package for 320 Pearl is currently being evaluated and the provider is working with the contracts division to negotiate a contract and get a budget approved.

There are some big issues that were brought up but not fully addressed. Since the shelter abuts the Peck Slip School, residents can look into the windows of the school and vice versa. The city and Breaking Ground said they would frost the residents windows — which only open partially — and put some sort of canopy over the courtyard space.

Also, the front door to the shelter is about five feet from one of the main entrances for the school. The shelter staff said they would have security there at the start and end of school, but that did little to appease parents.

“How will drug use be monitored outside in the neighborhood?” asked one father. “Your security guards can’t police the whole area. And residents can’t use illegal drugs onsite. Where do you expect they go to use? to get their fix?”

Board members continually asked the city why they can’t change the plan at that site, but DSS reps said the layout won’t allow for families.

“I appreciate you selling your contract, but I am asking DSS, why not put a single person regular shelter here?” said Tammy Meltzer. “There are other Safe Havens opening south of 14th Street.”

“Why are you insisting on this model,” said Pat Moore, “when we are saying we are completely opposed?”