The Northood Civic Association held their monthly meeting last night, April 20th at St. James. A good crowd was on hand.
The Civic has met now met with all political representatives involved and has their support on the issue of the Volunteers of America (VOA) purchase of the house on Roosevelt Boulevard for use as a group home. No compromise is possible and the home must be used as a single family home period. The ball is now in the VOA court.
The lawsuit against Northwood Civic Association by Attorney Guinan has been settled satisfactorily. No further action is to take place on the matter.
Barry Howell reported on the meeting Friday night with New Frankford Developers LLC. His comments are below.
In addition, Felicia Richardson of New Frankford Developers attended the meeting and took the opportunity to speak for a few minutes about plans for the Y. Her comments are below.
The issue of crime came up at the end of the meeting and many of those in attendance had personal experiences to report. Many were relatively minor nuisance crimes that would not usually get a police response. Barry noted however that a call to report the problem should always be made to get it on the record. Pete Specos (Frankford Civic) noted that people should take advantage of the newly implemented PSA meetings to bring these issues directly to the captain. The next PSA (Police Sector Area) meeting for sector 1 is on May 4th at 7PM at the second floor conference room at Aria Frankford.
Barry also noted that there was a flash mob in Northwood last Wednesday, April 14th. Police had been monitoring it and expected it to happen at Roosevelt Mall. No damage or injury was reported.
The Greenwood Cemetery will hold a ground breaking on the restoration of the old farmhouse on Friday, April 30th at 10AM. The pols will be there for picture opportunities. It is a historic building and the public is invited.
The next meeting for the Northwood Civic is on May 18th.
9 thoughts on “Northwood Civic Meeting”
Great video, that’s top notch. You can quote all you like, but it’s so much better to have the participants speak for themselves. I love it.
Hopefully that settles the comments from the Y stakeholders meeting post.
Also, is Attorney Guinan with VOA or is that a separate issue? What was the association getting sued for?
The Attorney Guinan issue was related to a demand for payment for services rendered under the former president’s tenure. Not related to VOA at all. Not much time was spent on it at the meeting.
After reading the proposal for the Y takeover, I’m really disappointed in the quality of the proposal, from the use of 10 year old census figures throughout (I know nothing newer is officially available, but that’s really stale data considering how much Frankford and the city as a whole have changed over the past decade), the poor grammar and unprofessional style, and the lack of actual depth in the plan; everything is at such a high level.
There are other criteria for which you might criticize this proposal. However, grammar and style, while they are significant, are not really substantive. The fact is that there is nobody else in line to try to redeem this facility. What other options do we have. I don’t know whether they can pull this off but I don’t see anybody else even coming close to providing a community center for Frankford.
All we can do is wait and see. In the meantime the property around the Y and the parking lot have been kept very clean which makes me very happy as I pass by there almost every day.
I am concerned that a claim was made by Mr. Bannister that NFD bought the apartment complex next to the Y back in July and yet they still don’t show as the owners. The BRT is not that far behind in their postings. Are they owners or are they simply the property managers? I’m also concerned that nothing comes up when I do an online search on NFD and yet Ms. Richardson claims to have done so much with large apartment complexes.
Gil, I will give you that grammar and style aren’t the most substantive thing (and there are a fair number of other things in the proposal that rubbed me the wrong way personally, but I understand a need exists for many of the services they propose, so I wasn’t going to provide the negative commentary) but the overall presentation being less than polished just makes me wonder. If they didn’t take the time to ensure that their proposal was as crisp and clean as it could be, how can we really take them seriously? The research on the area included in the proposal is about as deep as a Wikipedia article.
I grew up right down the street and used the Y’s facilities for many years both as the YWCA and the NFCY. I would love to see something positive happen with that space, I’m just a big skeptical about what I’ve read. There just seems to be a lot of holes. Where’s their feasibility study? Has any research been done to conclude that there’s a true market for extended hours child care for ages 2 1/2 and up to make it cost effective? Child care is expensive business and most Frankford residents don’t have a ton of money. Have they sought out government subsidies for this? They noted offering services for local residents in halfway or rehab type programs. Is there a plan to ensure that children in the child care center will not be affected by the folks coming in from these programs? There are other holes for me as well, these are just the ones off the top of my head.
As much as I don’t want to see the Y become just another piece of abandoned urban blight, I also don’t want to see more and more of our tax dollars get flushed down the toilet because we didn’t force everyone to do their homework.
There is subsidized daycare money available for low income residents, they need only apply and show proof of income and the subsidized daycare program pays a large portion or sometimes all the childcare fees once your child comes up on the waiting list. The office is located on the Boulevard. There are also meal reimbusements available to childcare providers. The Y was already providing quality childcare befor and had a waiting list.
AC, I understand your concerns. I share them. The meeting where they laid out their plans heard almost each of your points expressed and answered.
The day care would be exactly as it was when the Y closed. Most of it was subsidized and would continue to be. The building design would provide physical separation between the day care and other functions. That would be an improvement over the existing design.
The issue of people from recovery houses using the facilities would also be similar to past practice. They get a type of membership and can use it like any other person.
I have a tape of 53 minutes of the meeting and will try to post it to our page in a few day. It will be broken up into multiple parts with some editing of the non essential parts. That may help everyone get picture a little clearer.
Comments are closed.