Nursing Home Move Sparks NIMBY Outcry
Agency’s presence in Manhattan could hang in the balance as city commission considers the issue.
As the son of a 94-year-old resident of Jewish Home Lifecare’s Manhattan facility, Bob Wilkis supports the agency’s proposal to move its home from West 106th Street to a new, high-rise tower it hopes to build nine blocks south, on West 97th Street.
“I didn’t have to be sold [on the idea] that a new building is needed,” said Wilkis, whose mother, Rhoda, has lived at JHL’s current home for more than a decade. The current home, parts of which date back to the 1880s, “is just broken,” he added, echoing the agency’s assertion that it’s outmoded, inefficient and costly. “Their engineers are always in the panic mode.”
In contrast, the new building envisioned by JHL — which with additional campuses in the Bronx and Westchester is the largest nonprofit provider of “senior-living programs” in New York State — would be a state-of-the-art facility. The new facility will be developed in conjunction with the Green House Project, a national effort to de-institutionalize nursing homes and make them more homelike.
But JHL’s proposal has divided residents of the Upper West Side, some of whom are opposing or at least questioning the project for a host of reasons, including concerns over how it might affect traffic and congestion in the neighborhood, noise levels and even the safety of schoolchildren.
Earlier this month, many of them attended a packed meeting of Manhattan’s Community Board 7, which passed a resolution that could trigger a lengthy, costly and multilayered review process. Whether it does depends on the judgment of the City Planning Commission — JHL may choose to abandon the project, said Ethan Geto, a spokesman for the agency. More seriously, he added, if no other solution emerges, the agency’s 106th Street campus — which has 514 beds, 400 for long-term patients and 114 for those in need of rehabilitation — may prove unsustainable, forcing the agency’s departure from Manhattan.
In the months leading up to the Feb. 7 meeting, JHL — better known to some New Yorkers as the Jewish Home and Hospital, its former name — argued that city law allows the agency to build the 97th Street project “as of right” as long as it meets all zoning regulations. But the rules allowing the project stipulate that three conditions have to exist before it proceeds, one of which is that there’s no scarcity of land within the district for community facilities.
The Community Board’s resolution, approved 37 to zero, with five abstentions, states that the district does, in fact, have a “scarcity of land” for “general community purposes” — a controversial finding that now goes to the City Planning Commission for review.
A rejection of that finding would allow JHL’s project to go forward, Geto explained. But if the commission agrees with the resolution, it would set in motion a “full-blown” review process requiring JHL to seek a special permit, prepare an environmental impact statement and possibly change the project’s design. The entire process could last years, requiring input from the commission, the borough president, Community Board 7 and the City Council.
Mark Diller, chair of the Community Board, believes he and his colleagues dealt with the issue fairly, allowing “everyone who wanted to be heard” a chance to be heard. Several issues need to be explored, but haven’t, Diller said, prompting the board’s action. He added that a land-use review process ensures that “folks can identify issues, explore them, find out what, if anything, can be done about them and then decide … how to proceed.”
But Sheldon Fine, one of the five Community Board members who abstained from the vote, told The Jewish Week that the board’s resolution was a “tool” to force a review process rather than a finding backed by any substantial evidence.
“I believe that City Planning is intelligent enough to understand what transpired” at last week’s meeting, said Fine, who heads the West Side Federation for Senior and Supportive Housing, a nonprofit provider of affordable housing for senior citizens. “Normally, a board resolution that shows a finding explains how it determined that finding.” But “in this resolution,” he said, “there’s no justification for the finding — just [a statement] that it was found.”
JHL agrees with Fine’s view, according to Geto.
“The reality is that Community Board 7 is not terribly concerned with the ‘scarcity of land’ issue,” he said, “but some on the board are leveraging that issue as a surrogate for the real motive” driving their opposition — namely, concern over a new building blocking their views, density, traffic and other neighborhood issues.
Geto also disputes the board’s finding, saying that no social service agency these days has the money to purchase a prime piece of Manhattan real estate and build on it. In addition, he said, JHL would actually reduce its “footprint” once it builds on 97th Street, a site occupying much less land than its current home on 106th Street. The proposed site will have fewer beds — 414, compared to the current site’s 514 — and was obtained through a land swap negotiated with a major developer.
Whatever the justification for the “scarcity of land” finding, no one denies that the neighborhood around JHL’s new site, now a parking lot for 20 cars, is plagued with a good many problems, including gridlock along 97th Street, a designated truck route.
“We already have a situation at certain points of the day where emergency vehicles can’t get through,” said Hillel Hoffman, vice president of West Siders for Public Participation. Like many of those opposing the project, Hoffman lives in Park West Village, a complex of buildings surrounding the site, and belongs to a tenants group that has taken a strong stand on the issue.
Some people have accused the project’s opponents of NIMBY, Hoffman said, referring to the acronym for “not in my backyard.” But “my response is that we’re way beyond NIMBY. We’ve just gone through five years of construction on five new apartment buildings and wall-to-wall retail establishments on both sides of Columbus Avenue from 97th Street to 100th Street.”
Other concerns involve the students attending P.S. 163, the elementary school next to the site, and how the project could pose risks to their safety and their quality of education, said Carrie Reynolds, co-president of the PTA.
Officials at JHL, an agency of UJA-Federation of New York, have worked closely with members of the community to address their concerns, Geto said. The height of the proposed building has been reduced from 24 stories to 20; the design now includes an access road; the agency would establish a 24-hour hotline for neighbors to call with concerns; and construction would be limited to minimize any adverse impact on the students of P.S.163.
♦
Meanwhile, those supporting the project are expressing concern over the impact on the area’s elderly should the building not proceed and the 106th Street campus close.
The loss of JHL “would be terrible not only for people who want to remain in the community and need the agency’s services, but also for the families of the elderly who want to be close to their relatives,” Fine said. He and others note that JHL, which also has campuses in the Bronx and Westchester, serves a population of mostly frail and indigent patients, including many blacks and Latinos.
Fine said it would be “tragic” if JHL disappeared from Manhattan, pointing out that it’s the only large health provider for the elderly in Community District 7, which runs from 59th to 110th streets. Recalling a personal story, he said one man from his shul, Young Israel of the West Side, needed long-term nursing care several years ago and initially found it at St. Barnabas Hospital in the Bronx, where it was “very hard” for other congregants to visit him. He was eventually moved to the Jewish Home, where, for the remaining four years of his life, he received frequent visits from his Young Israel friends.
The void would be especially great considering how many nursing homes have disappeared in recent years. Bob Kramer, president and CEO of the National Investment Center for the Seniors Housing and Care Industry, an organization that tracks trends in the field for lenders, investors and developers, said he’s counted an average of 30 closures each year in the 31 largest urban areas since 2007. In the New York area, he added, the figure has been two closures a year during the same period.
For Bob Wilkis, of course, the loss would be personal.
President of Relatives and Friends of Manhattan Jewish Home, Wilkis brought his mother to the city in 2001 only to watch as her health declined, prompting her hospitalization and, later, her move to JHL. Rarely a day goes by when he doesn’t visit his mother, said Wilkis, who lives within blocks of the home on the Upper West Side.
But Wilkis said he’d find it difficult to continue that schedule should his mother have to move to a nursing home outside Manhattan. He understands the concerns of his Upper West Side neighbors, he said, but “no one is going to profit” from JHL’s move to 97th Street.
“I just believe from the bottom of my heart that the good outweighs the bad,” he said.
Signup for our weekly email newsletter here. Check out the Jewish Week's Facebook page and become a fan! Follow the Jewish Week on Twitter: start here. |
NEWS | Sections Menu
Breaking News
- U.S. Jewish Groups Condemn Anti-African Violence In Tel Aviv
- Romney To Meet In Boston With Jewish Donors
- Hynes Warns That Rabbis Could Face Prosecution For First Vetting Abuse Allegations
- Brooklyn Man Sentenced For Abusing Haredi Kids
- Israeli Doctors To Perform Face Transplant
- Eight Members Of Family Killed In Galilee Crash



Comments
The Jewish Week welcomes comments on our stories and encourages discussions germane to our articles. But we will not become a platform for screaming matches or personal attacks against individuals, organizations or religious or political perspectives.
Commenting guidelines:
As someone who not only works with the older population on the West Side, who lives on the West Side, and, attended the presentation given by JH & Life Extention, I'm ready to put myself on the waiting list!
If it's okay to let supermarkets move to cross streets and heavily trafficked areas without concern for the havoc it creates; and multiple banks, drug stores and high end stores be allowed, this should be a "no brainer". Over the last 48 years I have lived, worked, been active in the schools, community and raised a family. What used to be a family oriented community of people who cared has changed beyond recognition.
Our population has aged in place and we have dealt with multiple problems, this needs to be looked at from that point of view. Please, look at the reality...more and more people will be needing these services and problems can be worked out. Let's be fair. SDS
NIMBY?! How offensive! "NIMBY" implies we don't want senior citizen housing in our neighborhood, with a nod and a wink to suggest we don't want "Jewish" senior housing in our neighborhood. No one at that Community Board 7 meeting on February 7 was crying out, "Seniors go away!"
This article is a big, transparent PR piece for JHL. Ethan Geto couldn't be happier if he had written it himself. (Maybe he did.)
How exploitative to use the plight of seniors to make UWS residents look bad! Whether for a senior center or some corporate Bank & Drug Store Combination SuperCenter, this lot is simply a terrible place to blast, pound, and slam up a 20 story, high-ceiling building. Hey, JHL, maybe you can use all your money to buy and convert a pre-existing building.
Hey, Doug Chandler, how about spending paragraphs and paragraphs on the plight of the children in the 3-story Pre-K - 5th grade school that sits a mere 10 or so yards away from the construction site? The author manipulatively offers that JHL helps "many blacks and Latinos," which is great, but he makes no mention that the school's students and their families include "many blacks and Latinos."
This building will take 3 school years to complete. That means that dynamite blasts, pile drivers, and skyscraping cranes will be oh so close to little kids.
Saying that "construction would be limited to minimize any adverse impact on the students of P.S.163" is by definition an admission that children should not be near. That means construction cannot be done during school hours. Period.
So to JHL and your lawyers and your paid spokesperson and all of the developers and politicians and bureaucrats who are all for business-as-usual, I cry out: "Find a more appropriate location!"
Jewish Home has a State approved plan and a zoning carve out from New York City to rebuild its 106th Street facility. Same number of beds. Same budget. Same green house project. Jewish Home can better serve the West Side Community by staying in place where it has three times more space than W97th Street and not constructing a 20 story building next to an elementary school on an already overcrowded artery from the East Side to the West Side highway, blocking the only driveway to a 16 story apartment building. Twenty stories is a warehouse, not a greenhouse.
No one disputes the need for a new Jewish Home. On September 2, 2008, the New York State Department of Health granted Jewish Home approval to construct a 408-bed replacement facility on its existing West 106th Street campus. The approved plan had been subject to an extensive review by Manhattan Valley neighborhood constituencies that resulted in an executed Memorandum of Agreement, an executed Memorandum of Understanding, and a negotiated Declaration of Development Covenants and Restrictions. Thus it is a demonstrably false conclusion that Jewish Home can only survive on the Upper West Side of Manhattan by rebuilding on West 97th Street.
JHL's assertion that would be "reducing its foot print" is specious. The "carve out" on 106th street, becomes property of the developer, Chetrit, and Chetrit gets to build a residential building with the new zoning. What that produces is LESS zoned space for public use. CB7, at great length, and with careful consideration, determined land scarcity, and JHL is willing to make a further reduction in the land swap.
JHL is willing to reduce the number of residents it can serve by shoehorning into 97th street. It is willing to give up 100 beds to do it. Why? Don't they think they there might be 100 more seniors in need? Does JHL really believe 97th street is the only place this building can go? 97th street is it, or they leave Manhattan? Why? Because JHL wants to stay in CB7 to keep its "as of right" designation so it doesn't have to go through a ULURP. When it comes to a 20 story building to house the elderly that is being built next to a small elementary school, shouldn't these caregivers care enough to determine if it is safe? Safe to build and safe to live in? A ULURP isn't a "no", it is way to determine if it is appropriate construction.
Mr. Chandler has written a very one side piece, and has backed up his editorial position by quoting Mr. Fine. Mr. Fine abstained from the vote, he did not vote "opposed" and he did not vote "conflict". Mr Fine knows that JHL and CB7 have the same access to the same data on vacant lots, which was discussed at length at the Jan 17, 2012 hearing.
Who said it okay to build the buildings and stores you mentioned? It is not okay. But how does adding to to the traffic, congestion and lack of safety improve anyone's life? This the most family oriented neighborhood I have lived in. I am sure your intentions are right. I know they are because I want what is best for the aging population and this great neighborhood, too. Stacking the elderly in a highrise is not the answer. Making 97th street even more congested and less safe is not the answer. Rebuilding on 106th street where the building can be lower and safer is. And a plan for that has already been honed and approved. It JHL's plan. It was good for them 5 years ago. They should revisit it.
Was this an opinion piece or a news piece? Considering the following, it seems to this elderly UWS liberal that it’s an opinion piece.
*The opening quote is from a 94 year old JHL resident's son concerning the importance of the new building. In case you didn’t get it, there's the picture of a “near-daily” visit by her son; the smiling young woman isn’t identified but seems to be a JHL employee.
*The JHL spokesperson and the abstaining CB7 member are quoted extensively in favor. Comments from those opposed, a West Park Village’s tenants’ group member and PS 163’s PTA co-president are given much less space.
*The abstaining Board member says that it was unusual for the resolution not to state a justification BUT no mention made of the CB7’s letter providing the Commission with background and context for the resolution.
*No interviews with PS 163 parents who, based on studies, have legitimate concerns for their children’s health and safety if construction is approved BUT a story about an elderly Jewish man who, because JHL is on 106th, was able to receive visits from shul members AND the closing paragraphs are devoted to a JHL resident’s son who'll be inconvenienced if the project doesn’t go ahead.
*The people cited in favor of the proposed construction? People with JHL parents, the spokes-person for JHL, and the abstaining CB7 member.
BTW: According to Wikipedia: Abstention may be used to indicate ambivalence about the measure, or mild disapproval that does not rise to the level of active opposition; when someone has a certain position about an issue, but the popular sentiment supports the opposite, making it politically expedient not to vote according to his/ her conscience; or if the person does not feel adequately informed or has not participated in relevant discussion.
I can guarantee without any doubt the Mr. Wilkis's mother will continue to live a lot longer than many of the residents near that massive construction project, that will lay the foundations, necessitating that huge hole in the ground and the dust and grime that will be transported into the lungs of the sick and not so sick residents of Park West Village. Also guaranteed will be it will take no less than 4-5 years. So Mr. Wilkis won't be able to see his mother every day. He has car and will travel when he can.
As far as any attempt to link the opposition to ant-semitism, racism, or any other ism, (that means you, ethan geto) nice try, but it just won't work.
JHL and my friends at CHETRIT have always acted as though this was a closed matter, a done deal, a fait accompli with the full knowledge that this entire project would never have made it to first base without the early political support of that genius of a Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who never met a business he didn't like.
I didn't vote for you Michael, I don't like you, Michael, or some of your quaint ideas. I can also assure you Michael, that i am a much better JEW than you are without all of your displays of charitable giving, and your wealth, and have done a lot more for the Jewish people here and in Israel than you could ever hope to do given another lifetime.
Post new comment