Hi everyone! I'm shutting down comments since I can't actively check them at the rate I have today—should you want to engage with me or my office, email me at sharon.durkan@boston.gov!
Sharon, I have a slightly different question for you. One of our neighbors mentioned that the building isn't actually zoned for these tiny residences without bathrooms and kitchens. Could you comment on that? To be honest, I'm not entirely surprised that the zoning might not permit this type of housing anymore. Back in the '70s, we had quite a few of these places on the hill, but times have changed, and it doesn't seem appropriate anymore. The hill has really changed a lot. It is now much different then it was back then
Liz raised another very good point. The hill has changed a lot, and these buildings have been empty for decades. I presume this will need to be reviewed by the zoning committee as well. I know that after two years of non-use of any special zoning permit, you will need to reapply. Could you also comment on that?
That is not correct, based on my understanding, but I am not an attorney. This aligns with the historic use of the property and the current and active license. In my opinion this proposal is a special one that creates an opportunity for a reputable organization to ensure that these buildings are taken care of, and that residents have access to resources and care, if needed.
I’m so glad you wrote this op-ed, Councilor! These points about private bathrooms and kitchens are thinly veiled concerns about having formerly homeless women in the neighborhood bringing down housing prices. Nice to see an elected standing up against a faction of vocal constituents for the sake of inclusivity!
There are over 100 people who live on Hancock street and adjacent streets who are AGAINST this proposal and have signed a petition. As you don't live on Hancock street, don't you think that the voice of the people who do live there are more important than yours? Also, please take a look at the Boston Globe article ‘I feel reborn’: One man’s fight to overcome addiction after living at Mass. and Cass By Chris Serres Globe Staff, Updated November 28, 2023. which describes in detail the drug use and drug dealing going on in Bowdoin Manor, a lodging house on Beacon Hill,. "To avoid debilitating withdrawal symptoms, Pagan continues to inject heroin twice a day, and his primary supplier lives in the same building. To get a hit, Pagan needs only knock on his door. And he isn’t alone: Many of the residents in his complex are formerly homeless people who use illicit drugs, including people he recognizes from Mass. and Cass. On a recent morning, used drug syringes were visible in the building’s third-floor bathroom." How can you guarantee that this will not happen on Hancock street if it is happening one block over ???
I disagree that WLP or I would be part of supporting an unsatisfactory living situation for women. I hope this project earns your support and I welcome more engagement as we have a community conversation!
All we are asking for is not to pile up 6 , 7 , 8 women in one floor with one bathroom.We do not need to stand with a particular non profit to advocate for better quality housing.
Why would you support something that clearly the neighborhood does not want, and that has been shown to be bad for the neighborhood (see Bowdoin Manor). Why can't WLP convert the building to larger units with kitchenettes and bathrooms?
Please can you tell us what the misinformation is. As your constituent and taxpayer , you deserve to know. You can not throw the word misinformation around without providing any specification
Thanks for your engagement on this. The following claims included in the flyer are incorrect: 1.) SROs “are plagued by drug use and loitering;” and 2.) this proposal “would allow the owner of the properties and the luxury Archer buildings on Temple Street to walk away from their obligation to provide affordable apartments in Beacon Hill.” Firstly, there are many successful examples of single-room occupancy housing stock in the City. Following the BPDA approval of the Temple Street project, the The Affordable Housing Contribution Agreement was crafted and states: “The Developer intends to purchase 27 and 29 Hancock Street to create (40) Off-Site IDP Units totaling 12,119 square feet pursuant to the terms hereof.”
This aligns with the historic use of the property and the current and active lodging house license.
I am writing to express my concern about the current representation of our neighborhood's interests. It appears that the needs and wishes of our community members are not being adequately addressed.
The proposal from Women’s Lunch Place to house 36 homeless women in a building without essential facilities such as a kitchen or bathrooms is deeply concerning. Not only does this seem inhumane, but it also raises legal questions. Our community strongly believes in providing dignified and suitable living conditions for all residents, and this proposal falls short of that ideal.
Furthermore, our neighborhood has expressed a clear desire for the City to develop multi-room units for low-income individuals and families. This is a critical need that should be prioritized to ensure the well-being of our community members.
Additionally, it is disconcerting to learn that the developer of the luxury building on Temple Street has seemingly bypassed their obligation to create affordable housing for families. This issue needs to be addressed to ensure fairness and uphold the principles of our community.
I urge you to take these concerns into consideration and advocate for the needs of our neighborhood. We rely on your support and representation to ensure that our community remains a place where everyone can live with dignity and respect.
Thank you for reaching out. The proposal from Women’s Lunch Place will provide dignified conditions precisely because it is Women’s Lunch Place who will be offering these units. They have a proven track record; 97% of women that WLP has enrolled in their stabilization program continue to be housed.
The developers are not skirting their IDP requirements. This project would fulfill that obligation.
How can you guarantee that this will work? Has Women's Lunch Place demonstrated a history of accommodating 36 homeless women in a facility lacking essential amenities like kitchens and bathrooms? I find it hard to believe, as such a practice would be against the law. Would such conditions be considered acceptable if men were the subjects? It's hard to fathom supporting such treatment towards women.
Why not consider a more humane approach, such as providing housing that includes individual kitchenettes and bathrooms? It seems puzzling that Women's Lunch Place is opting for smaller Single Room Occupancies (SROs). I'm struggling to understand why there appears to be more support for them rather than the local community. After all, the neighborhood is advocating for dignified housing for families and women with children, which seems like a more compassionate and respectful solution.
Councilor Durkin, for my understanding could you clarify who would develop this property? If you say that this project would fulfill the developer's IDP obligation, does that mean they are paying for it? If so, can you not just ask them to construct higher quality housing? I am trying to understand your position
I have a lot of neighbors who have reached out today in support of this proposal as well. I understand your frustration that we have a difference of opinion here but I hope you will keep an open mind and we can work together in the future for the betterment of our shared community!
We are all proud to support Women. Having read the flyer, I think what the authors asked for is better quality housing. Their problem is not with Women's Lunch Place. I think they even said they support, Women's Lunch Place. The issue they are raising is that packing 36 women into small 100-150 sqft rooms without bathrooms and kitchens is not a good idea. They are asking for higher quality housing. Are you saying that is not a valid ask? Why would housing with a bathroom not be better? Don't women deserve better?
I actually re-read the flyer. The flyer actually even says "Hancock Street supports the creation of 10 new apartments at 27/29 Hancock Street for low-income women or families. We hope you will join us". The flyer also points out that Philadelphia, New York City and Los Angeles support apartment-based living for low-income women. Why can Boston not support that? Apartments are much better than re-opening a boarding house. Let's come up with a great solution for WLP.
I also don't like it at all that the developer of Temple Street is being let of the hook. I would like to know what Sharon has done to address that. Isn't it the developers responsibility to deliver high quality apartments? We should insist on that
I suggest you read the contract laying out the obligations of the developer. You clearly did not. Once you actually read it, you will see that the developer has not fulfilled its obligations.
We need to rethink the notion that only families are welcome in Beacon Hill. Beacon Hill is for everyone and this project proposal fits an expressed need!
These are vulnerable women that will be supported by Women’s Lunch Place by wrap-around services. If one truly stands with Women’s Lunch Place, this project is exactly the proposal that a venerable organization can be trusted with!
Many neighbors have spent time several years ago developing a thoughtful plan with 6 key neighborhood aspirations that stand the test of time. Aspiration # 4 “ Familes of all ages and financial capacities thrive” and furthermore we “support the development of a broader range of housing options on Beacon Hill and nearby” only 733 children under the age of 17 live in Beacon Hill. Our neighborhood has programs in place for children and wonderful playgrounds and resources. Please continue the conversations with the neighbors so the optimal
Outcome can be reached for the current neighbors and new residents. Encouraging families to live in Beacon Hill has been a goal of our neighborhood for decades.
Thanks for your feedback and history, Diana! Look forward to continuing the conversation on how to make Boston and Beacon Hill an event better place to raise a family.
Thank you very much for your response. I don't think the petition says or implies that this would ONLY be for families. I think petitioners are asking for to also construct units that would be suitable for single mothers. Housing for lower income single mothers is extreme difficult to difficult to find in Boston. Don't they are deserving too?
Thank you for your feedback! I did intend for this op-ed to show my support for the current proposal on the table. This is a specific proposal which I think is compelling for the neighborhood with a great partner in WLP, and support services. I support affordable housing throughout my district that may be able to cater to a different population of women.
I am a big supporter of affordable housing, but I kind of agree that 36 units without bathrooms and kitchens is not a good idea. Could we collectively work with you to find a better solution? I would imagine that Women's Lunch Place would also rather have units with bathrooms and kitchens. I am familiar with Good Shepherd Women's Village in Los Angeles and those are all one bedrooms.
I disagree that this is not a good solution! Given that the building is already designed internally for a specific set up, it would be prohibitive to change plumbing, electrical, and internal architecture to create affordable housing units that are bigger. I will ensure that there's a public meeting where this is covered!
I am also confused by your statement around misinformation in the flyer - could you please be specific? From what the neighbors have been told, every data point in the flyer is accurate and sourced. What we’re asking for is high quality housing and clarity around how WLP is supporting the women they are moving into the facility…. If you have more information and clarity around these questions it would be great for you to share it.
Hi Councilor Durkan - I see you’ve responded to almost every comment except this one - can you please point to which information has been inaccurate and provide clarity? The lack of communication on what is happening is the major reason so many feel concerned with this project, especially since many in the community were completely unaware of it until neighbors spoke up.
Thanks for your engagement on this. The following claims included in the flyer are incorrect: 1.) SROs “are plagued by drug use and loitering;” and 2.) this proposal “would allow the owner of the properties and the luxury Archer buildings on Temple Street to walk away from their obligation to provide affordable apartments in Beacon Hill.” Firstly, there are many successful examples of single-room occupancy housing stock in the City. Following the BPDA approval of the Temple Street project, the The Affordable Housing Contribution Agreement was crafted and states: “The Developer intends to purchase 27 and 29 Hancock Street to create (40) Off-Site IDP Units totaling 12,119 square feet pursuant to the terms hereof.”
This aligns with the historic use of the property and the current and active lodging house license.
is this a bit of a mischaracterization though? Having read the flyer, I think what the authors asked for is better quality housing. Their problem was not with Women's Lunch Place. I think they even said they support, Women's Lunch Place. The issue they are raising is that packing 36 women into small 100-150 sqft rooms without bathrooms and kitchens is not a good idea. They are asking for higher quality housing. Are you saying that is not a valid ask? Why would housing with a bathroom not be better?
The criticism I've heard mostly has been that there is no plan for a live-in counselor or supervisor that can help the formerly homeless women thrive. I don't know if that is true or not, but it does seem as if a live-in counselor would be an asset to the residents of the building.
The criticism and asks are summarized in Hans's post:
1. Adequate sized apartments that provide private kitchenettes and bathrooms.
2. Ability to accommodate low-income women with children.
3. A community that is appropriately sized for on-site support (10 units)
4. Compliance with all zoning, fire and other applicable building codes.
5. Drug-free with zero tolerance policies strongly enforced.
The current plan does not comply with current zoning laws so I don't understand why Councilor Durkin would support a request that is illegal and would not support the wishes of the neighborhood who are supportive of low income housing just not corralling 36 homeless women into a building without kitchen or bathrooms.
These are all things that can be talked about! I believe in working out a good neighbor agreement that would create trust with neighbors and ensure quality of life. Thanks for your feedback!
That is great, one of the five things the neighbors are asking for. Seems like a reasonable request. What about the other request from the neighbors? Why are you not supporting their petition in that case?
Can I asked what the misinformation is? I thought the flyer was very measured. As neighbors we support affordable housing. The concern is about the quality of the housing provided.
Thanks for your engagement on this. The following claims included in the flyer are incorrect: 1.) SROs “are plagued by drug use and loitering;” and 2.) this proposal “would allow the owner of the properties and the luxury Archer buildings on Temple Street to walk away from their obligation to provide affordable apartments in Beacon Hill.” Firstly, there are many successful examples of single-room occupancy housing stock in the City. Following the BPDA approval of the Temple Street project, the The Affordable Housing Contribution Agreement was crafted and states: “The Developer intends to purchase 27 and 29 Hancock Street to create (40) Off-Site IDP Units totaling 12,119 square feet pursuant to the terms hereof.”
This aligns with the historic use of the property and the current and active lodging house license.
To me it's not just these points that need to be set straight, it's also the fact that it feels premature to have developed a position on a proposal and materials when most people have not gotten a chance to sit through a meeting with WLP. I believe as a resident of the neighborhood that my voice is important here as well.
Thank you very much for this clarification. To be fair to the authors, the flyer says that "Cities and states across the country have been limiting the use of SROs, because they are plagued by drug use and loitering...." an then goes on to give examples of cities that have taken a different path. I am not sure it is disinformation to say what other cities and states have done and why. I looked at the examples given for Philadelphia, New York and LA and those seem indeed much better solutions
Could you clarify also your second statement? I would specifically like to know who will be paying for the rehabilitation of these buildings. I walk by them daily and the are in a terrible condition. Temple Street looks beautiful, but it does not appear if the developer of Temple Street has spend any money on 27/29 Hancock Street. Will the developer fix those up? Or will this be left to Women's Lunch Place or the tax payer? I really feel that the developer should pay for this.
Please see my post above about SROs in Beacon Hill - according to the article in the Boston Globe about Bowdoin Manor, a lodging house on Beacon Hill, point 1) seems to be correct: "To avoid debilitating withdrawal symptoms, Pagan continues to inject heroin twice a day, and his primary supplier lives in the same building. To get a hit, Pagan needs only knock on his door. And he isn’t alone: Many of the residents in his complex are formerly homeless people who use illicit drugs, including people he recognizes from Mass. and Cass. On a recent morning, used drug syringes were visible in the building’s third-floor bathroom."
I presume this is the article from the Globe last November. As a supporter of affordable housing, I was pleased to read about someone the city was able to provide with a roof over their head but embarrassed by how little it actually was. The article mentioned beds too small for an adult and residents trying to keep the rats out by blocking the cracks. I really hope we are aiming for something better here. Bowdoin Manor is not housing we can be proud of.
Hi Jon! I understand that some of the concerns are about quality of life for these potential residents. I am dedicated to making sure any proposal involves updating the building and improving upon the building as well (making it accessible for all residents). This is what WLP has described! The building is already up to code but is in desperate need of updates, paint, floors, beautification. This proposal would deliver on that! When I speak to homeless and housing insecure people of Boston, they talk about needing consistency, support and health services. These are all central to the proposal!
Thank you very much for your prompt response. I didn't expect to hear back from you so late. Are you sure this building is up to code? That’s hard to believe. If it really is, it makes me even more concerned that we are not on the right path here. In that case, I am very worried that it will be no different from what was described in the Globe. I walk by there every day, and as a retired engineer, I can assure you it needs a lot more than just "beautification." I was expecting the developer to do a gut remodel. It was a boarding house before, I assume it will not be a boarding house again, no?
Hi everyone! I'm shutting down comments since I can't actively check them at the rate I have today—should you want to engage with me or my office, email me at sharon.durkan@boston.gov!
Best,
Sharon
District 8 City Councilor
Sharon, I have a slightly different question for you. One of our neighbors mentioned that the building isn't actually zoned for these tiny residences without bathrooms and kitchens. Could you comment on that? To be honest, I'm not entirely surprised that the zoning might not permit this type of housing anymore. Back in the '70s, we had quite a few of these places on the hill, but times have changed, and it doesn't seem appropriate anymore. The hill has really changed a lot. It is now much different then it was back then
Liz raised another very good point. The hill has changed a lot, and these buildings have been empty for decades. I presume this will need to be reviewed by the zoning committee as well. I know that after two years of non-use of any special zoning permit, you will need to reapply. Could you also comment on that?
Great question for a public meeting or others!
That is not correct, based on my understanding, but I am not an attorney. This aligns with the historic use of the property and the current and active license. In my opinion this proposal is a special one that creates an opportunity for a reputable organization to ensure that these buildings are taken care of, and that residents have access to resources and care, if needed.
I’m so glad you wrote this op-ed, Councilor! These points about private bathrooms and kitchens are thinly veiled concerns about having formerly homeless women in the neighborhood bringing down housing prices. Nice to see an elected standing up against a faction of vocal constituents for the sake of inclusivity!
There are over 100 people who live on Hancock street and adjacent streets who are AGAINST this proposal and have signed a petition. As you don't live on Hancock street, don't you think that the voice of the people who do live there are more important than yours? Also, please take a look at the Boston Globe article ‘I feel reborn’: One man’s fight to overcome addiction after living at Mass. and Cass By Chris Serres Globe Staff, Updated November 28, 2023. which describes in detail the drug use and drug dealing going on in Bowdoin Manor, a lodging house on Beacon Hill,. "To avoid debilitating withdrawal symptoms, Pagan continues to inject heroin twice a day, and his primary supplier lives in the same building. To get a hit, Pagan needs only knock on his door. And he isn’t alone: Many of the residents in his complex are formerly homeless people who use illicit drugs, including people he recognizes from Mass. and Cass. On a recent morning, used drug syringes were visible in the building’s third-floor bathroom." How can you guarantee that this will not happen on Hancock street if it is happening one block over ???
The focus should be on better housing, councilor Durkin should be more supportive if the neighborhood
I disagree that WLP or I would be part of supporting an unsatisfactory living situation for women. I hope this project earns your support and I welcome more engagement as we have a community conversation!
All we are asking for is not to pile up 6 , 7 , 8 women in one floor with one bathroom.We do not need to stand with a particular non profit to advocate for better quality housing.
Thanks for your thoughts. Though we disagree on this proposal, I welcome future engagement for our neighborhood's best interest!
Why would you support something that clearly the neighborhood does not want, and that has been shown to be bad for the neighborhood (see Bowdoin Manor). Why can't WLP convert the building to larger units with kitchenettes and bathrooms?
Please can you tell us what the misinformation is. As your constituent and taxpayer , you deserve to know. You can not throw the word misinformation around without providing any specification
Repasted this from above:
Thanks for your engagement on this. The following claims included in the flyer are incorrect: 1.) SROs “are plagued by drug use and loitering;” and 2.) this proposal “would allow the owner of the properties and the luxury Archer buildings on Temple Street to walk away from their obligation to provide affordable apartments in Beacon Hill.” Firstly, there are many successful examples of single-room occupancy housing stock in the City. Following the BPDA approval of the Temple Street project, the The Affordable Housing Contribution Agreement was crafted and states: “The Developer intends to purchase 27 and 29 Hancock Street to create (40) Off-Site IDP Units totaling 12,119 square feet pursuant to the terms hereof.”
This aligns with the historic use of the property and the current and active lodging house license.
Dear Councilor Durkin,
I am writing to express my concern about the current representation of our neighborhood's interests. It appears that the needs and wishes of our community members are not being adequately addressed.
The proposal from Women’s Lunch Place to house 36 homeless women in a building without essential facilities such as a kitchen or bathrooms is deeply concerning. Not only does this seem inhumane, but it also raises legal questions. Our community strongly believes in providing dignified and suitable living conditions for all residents, and this proposal falls short of that ideal.
Furthermore, our neighborhood has expressed a clear desire for the City to develop multi-room units for low-income individuals and families. This is a critical need that should be prioritized to ensure the well-being of our community members.
Additionally, it is disconcerting to learn that the developer of the luxury building on Temple Street has seemingly bypassed their obligation to create affordable housing for families. This issue needs to be addressed to ensure fairness and uphold the principles of our community.
I urge you to take these concerns into consideration and advocate for the needs of our neighborhood. We rely on your support and representation to ensure that our community remains a place where everyone can live with dignity and respect.
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Thank you for reaching out. The proposal from Women’s Lunch Place will provide dignified conditions precisely because it is Women’s Lunch Place who will be offering these units. They have a proven track record; 97% of women that WLP has enrolled in their stabilization program continue to be housed.
The developers are not skirting their IDP requirements. This project would fulfill that obligation.
How can you guarantee that this will work? Has Women's Lunch Place demonstrated a history of accommodating 36 homeless women in a facility lacking essential amenities like kitchens and bathrooms? I find it hard to believe, as such a practice would be against the law. Would such conditions be considered acceptable if men were the subjects? It's hard to fathom supporting such treatment towards women.
Why not consider a more humane approach, such as providing housing that includes individual kitchenettes and bathrooms? It seems puzzling that Women's Lunch Place is opting for smaller Single Room Occupancies (SROs). I'm struggling to understand why there appears to be more support for them rather than the local community. After all, the neighborhood is advocating for dignified housing for families and women with children, which seems like a more compassionate and respectful solution.
Councilor Durkin, for my understanding could you clarify who would develop this property? If you say that this project would fulfill the developer's IDP obligation, does that mean they are paying for it? If so, can you not just ask them to construct higher quality housing? I am trying to understand your position
This is a very good question. Who will be paying for this? I presume it is the developer. Councilor Durkin can you confirm?
totally agree!!!
Well said!!!
The flyer is very reasonable we should focus on better housing. Councilor Durkin should be supporting neighbors.
Agreed! She should be supporting her neighbors who happen to be her constituents too.
I have a lot of neighbors who have reached out today in support of this proposal as well. I understand your frustration that we have a difference of opinion here but I hope you will keep an open mind and we can work together in the future for the betterment of our shared community!
Do these neighbors live on Hancock Street?
I am proud of what you seek to do for the Women of Boston and the Beacon Hill community! ❤️
We are all proud to support Women. Having read the flyer, I think what the authors asked for is better quality housing. Their problem is not with Women's Lunch Place. I think they even said they support, Women's Lunch Place. The issue they are raising is that packing 36 women into small 100-150 sqft rooms without bathrooms and kitchens is not a good idea. They are asking for higher quality housing. Are you saying that is not a valid ask? Why would housing with a bathroom not be better? Don't women deserve better?
Why are the rooms so small? It seems like we should be able to do better if this is tied to the development of Temple Street.
I actually re-read the flyer. The flyer actually even says "Hancock Street supports the creation of 10 new apartments at 27/29 Hancock Street for low-income women or families. We hope you will join us". The flyer also points out that Philadelphia, New York City and Los Angeles support apartment-based living for low-income women. Why can Boston not support that? Apartments are much better than re-opening a boarding house. Let's come up with a great solution for WLP.
I also don't like it at all that the developer of Temple Street is being let of the hook. I would like to know what Sharon has done to address that. Isn't it the developers responsibility to deliver high quality apartments? We should insist on that
Residents cannot support a project that doesn’t exist. There is no proposal other than the proposal from WLP.
The developers are not skirting their IDP requirements. This project would fulfill that obligation.
I suggest you read the contract laying out the obligations of the developer. You clearly did not. Once you actually read it, you will see that the developer has not fulfilled its obligations.
I humbly disagree. The proposal by WLP would fulfill the project's IDP obligations.
I agree with Sam. Most of us stand with Women's Lunch Place, that is not the issue. The petition we all signed asks for:
1. Adequate sized apartments that provide private kitchenettes and bathrooms.
2. Ability to accommodate low-income women with children.
3. A community that is appropriately sized for on-site support (10 units); as Mayor Wu has
said “the only way to truly help someone stabilize is to address their individual needs,
person by person.” - Boston Globe
4. Compliance with all zoning, fire and other applicable building codes.
5. Drug-free with zero tolerance policies strongly enforced.
Those are all very reasonable request. Why would we not support that?
We need to rethink the notion that only families are welcome in Beacon Hill. Beacon Hill is for everyone and this project proposal fits an expressed need!
These are vulnerable women that will be supported by Women’s Lunch Place by wrap-around services. If one truly stands with Women’s Lunch Place, this project is exactly the proposal that a venerable organization can be trusted with!
Many neighbors have spent time several years ago developing a thoughtful plan with 6 key neighborhood aspirations that stand the test of time. Aspiration # 4 “ Familes of all ages and financial capacities thrive” and furthermore we “support the development of a broader range of housing options on Beacon Hill and nearby” only 733 children under the age of 17 live in Beacon Hill. Our neighborhood has programs in place for children and wonderful playgrounds and resources. Please continue the conversations with the neighbors so the optimal
Outcome can be reached for the current neighbors and new residents. Encouraging families to live in Beacon Hill has been a goal of our neighborhood for decades.
Thanks for your feedback and history, Diana! Look forward to continuing the conversation on how to make Boston and Beacon Hill an event better place to raise a family.
Thank you very much for your response. I don't think the petition says or implies that this would ONLY be for families. I think petitioners are asking for to also construct units that would be suitable for single mothers. Housing for lower income single mothers is extreme difficult to difficult to find in Boston. Don't they are deserving too?
Thank you for your feedback! I did intend for this op-ed to show my support for the current proposal on the table. This is a specific proposal which I think is compelling for the neighborhood with a great partner in WLP, and support services. I support affordable housing throughout my district that may be able to cater to a different population of women.
I am a big supporter of affordable housing, but I kind of agree that 36 units without bathrooms and kitchens is not a good idea. Could we collectively work with you to find a better solution? I would imagine that Women's Lunch Place would also rather have units with bathrooms and kitchens. I am familiar with Good Shepherd Women's Village in Los Angeles and those are all one bedrooms.
I disagree that this is not a good solution! Given that the building is already designed internally for a specific set up, it would be prohibitive to change plumbing, electrical, and internal architecture to create affordable housing units that are bigger. I will ensure that there's a public meeting where this is covered!
Will the Temple Street developer also come to that meeting? I presume they will need to pay for all, no?
Why are you supporting this proposal and not the proposal that the neighborhood wants (fewer and larger units for low-income women/families)?
I am also confused by your statement around misinformation in the flyer - could you please be specific? From what the neighbors have been told, every data point in the flyer is accurate and sourced. What we’re asking for is high quality housing and clarity around how WLP is supporting the women they are moving into the facility…. If you have more information and clarity around these questions it would be great for you to share it.
Hi Councilor Durkan - I see you’ve responded to almost every comment except this one - can you please point to which information has been inaccurate and provide clarity? The lack of communication on what is happening is the major reason so many feel concerned with this project, especially since many in the community were completely unaware of it until neighbors spoke up.
I would also like to know what the misinformation is. Councilor, can you be fact based?
Repasting from above:
Thanks for your engagement on this. The following claims included in the flyer are incorrect: 1.) SROs “are plagued by drug use and loitering;” and 2.) this proposal “would allow the owner of the properties and the luxury Archer buildings on Temple Street to walk away from their obligation to provide affordable apartments in Beacon Hill.” Firstly, there are many successful examples of single-room occupancy housing stock in the City. Following the BPDA approval of the Temple Street project, the The Affordable Housing Contribution Agreement was crafted and states: “The Developer intends to purchase 27 and 29 Hancock Street to create (40) Off-Site IDP Units totaling 12,119 square feet pursuant to the terms hereof.”
This aligns with the historic use of the property and the current and active lodging house license.
is this a bit of a mischaracterization though? Having read the flyer, I think what the authors asked for is better quality housing. Their problem was not with Women's Lunch Place. I think they even said they support, Women's Lunch Place. The issue they are raising is that packing 36 women into small 100-150 sqft rooms without bathrooms and kitchens is not a good idea. They are asking for higher quality housing. Are you saying that is not a valid ask? Why would housing with a bathroom not be better?
The criticism I've heard mostly has been that there is no plan for a live-in counselor or supervisor that can help the formerly homeless women thrive. I don't know if that is true or not, but it does seem as if a live-in counselor would be an asset to the residents of the building.
The criticism and asks are summarized in Hans's post:
1. Adequate sized apartments that provide private kitchenettes and bathrooms.
2. Ability to accommodate low-income women with children.
3. A community that is appropriately sized for on-site support (10 units)
4. Compliance with all zoning, fire and other applicable building codes.
5. Drug-free with zero tolerance policies strongly enforced.
The current plan does not comply with current zoning laws so I don't understand why Councilor Durkin would support a request that is illegal and would not support the wishes of the neighborhood who are supportive of low income housing just not corralling 36 homeless women into a building without kitchen or bathrooms.
Hi Karen! That is untrue. Happy to discuss and engage in the public conversation around this but supportive services are 100% what is being proposed!
Then I have heard no other complaints except that one. It sounds all good then.
They will have a live in person 100% of the time?
I presume this will be even more than one person, no? With 36 residents don't you need 3-4 permanent staff?
These are all things that can be talked about! I believe in working out a good neighbor agreement that would create trust with neighbors and ensure quality of life. Thanks for your feedback!
Yes!
That is great, one of the five things the neighbors are asking for. Seems like a reasonable request. What about the other request from the neighbors? Why are you not supporting their petition in that case?
Similar misinformation against the West End library development which should be cleared up.
Can I asked what the misinformation is? I thought the flyer was very measured. As neighbors we support affordable housing. The concern is about the quality of the housing provided.
Thanks for your engagement on this. The following claims included in the flyer are incorrect: 1.) SROs “are plagued by drug use and loitering;” and 2.) this proposal “would allow the owner of the properties and the luxury Archer buildings on Temple Street to walk away from their obligation to provide affordable apartments in Beacon Hill.” Firstly, there are many successful examples of single-room occupancy housing stock in the City. Following the BPDA approval of the Temple Street project, the The Affordable Housing Contribution Agreement was crafted and states: “The Developer intends to purchase 27 and 29 Hancock Street to create (40) Off-Site IDP Units totaling 12,119 square feet pursuant to the terms hereof.”
This aligns with the historic use of the property and the current and active lodging house license.
To me it's not just these points that need to be set straight, it's also the fact that it feels premature to have developed a position on a proposal and materials when most people have not gotten a chance to sit through a meeting with WLP. I believe as a resident of the neighborhood that my voice is important here as well.
Thank you very much for this clarification. To be fair to the authors, the flyer says that "Cities and states across the country have been limiting the use of SROs, because they are plagued by drug use and loitering...." an then goes on to give examples of cities that have taken a different path. I am not sure it is disinformation to say what other cities and states have done and why. I looked at the examples given for Philadelphia, New York and LA and those seem indeed much better solutions
Could you clarify also your second statement? I would specifically like to know who will be paying for the rehabilitation of these buildings. I walk by them daily and the are in a terrible condition. Temple Street looks beautiful, but it does not appear if the developer of Temple Street has spend any money on 27/29 Hancock Street. Will the developer fix those up? Or will this be left to Women's Lunch Place or the tax payer? I really feel that the developer should pay for this.
Please see my post above about SROs in Beacon Hill - according to the article in the Boston Globe about Bowdoin Manor, a lodging house on Beacon Hill, point 1) seems to be correct: "To avoid debilitating withdrawal symptoms, Pagan continues to inject heroin twice a day, and his primary supplier lives in the same building. To get a hit, Pagan needs only knock on his door. And he isn’t alone: Many of the residents in his complex are formerly homeless people who use illicit drugs, including people he recognizes from Mass. and Cass. On a recent morning, used drug syringes were visible in the building’s third-floor bathroom."
I presume this is the article from the Globe last November. As a supporter of affordable housing, I was pleased to read about someone the city was able to provide with a roof over their head but embarrassed by how little it actually was. The article mentioned beds too small for an adult and residents trying to keep the rats out by blocking the cracks. I really hope we are aiming for something better here. Bowdoin Manor is not housing we can be proud of.
Hi Jon! I understand that some of the concerns are about quality of life for these potential residents. I am dedicated to making sure any proposal involves updating the building and improving upon the building as well (making it accessible for all residents). This is what WLP has described! The building is already up to code but is in desperate need of updates, paint, floors, beautification. This proposal would deliver on that! When I speak to homeless and housing insecure people of Boston, they talk about needing consistency, support and health services. These are all central to the proposal!
Thank you very much for your prompt response. I didn't expect to hear back from you so late. Are you sure this building is up to code? That’s hard to believe. If it really is, it makes me even more concerned that we are not on the right path here. In that case, I am very worried that it will be no different from what was described in the Globe. I walk by there every day, and as a retired engineer, I can assure you it needs a lot more than just "beautification." I was expecting the developer to do a gut remodel. It was a boarding house before, I assume it will not be a boarding house again, no?