Albany

The quiet, tree-shaded blocks of Elm Street east of Lark are mostly lovely. I can't blame residents for fighting to keep them that way.

But in recent weeks, the fight has taken an unfortunate turn. It has centered on vacant lots near Swan Street, a rock's throw from Empire State Plaza, where the non-profit CARES Inc. has proposed building three townhouses for the recently homeless.

This, of course, has resulted in opposition.

I say "of course" because housing for poor people always brings opposition, unless it's planned for a forlorn industrial zone where trucks and dumpsters are the only neighbors.

That's just how it is.

And so it is along Elm Street.

A recent planning board meeting on the proposal drew a big crowd. I wasn't there, but "All Over Albany" was. The website published some of the things elected officials who represent the neighborhood — liberal Democrats all — said to applause from the crowd.

Albany County Legislature Chris Higgins, for example, said the apartments would drive families away. Common Council member Catherine Fahey said the buildings should not be allowed to destabilize the neighborhood.

Would these apartments really do that?

"We think this project will be good for the neighborhood," said Nancy Chiarella, executive director of CARES, headquartered on Henry Johnson Boulevard. "The goal is to blend in, and we want this to be a win for everybody."

The townhouses, with three one-bedroom apartments in each, would be tightly managed by CARES and would house nine people selected from emergency shelters. Their Elm Street homes would be as permanent as any other rental, meaning residents would probably stay for years and become part of the community. They would pay rent equal to 30 percent of their income.

"These folks are no different than anybody else," Chiarella said. "They've just fallen on hard times."

Chiarella stressed — and this is important — that the project also has received significant support in the neighborhood and the city. It's just that, so far, the opponents have been louder.

I won't claim that it's easy for me to be impartial about this. As I've said here before, government money kept me fed and housed for years when I was growing up, and my mother lives in subsidized housing to this day. Maybe it's irrational, but my blood boils when someone suggests the mere presence of nine poor people will drive better-off families away.

"I probably spoke out of turn when I said that to the planning board, but it is a possibility," said Higgins. "You do have to weigh the concerns of neighbors."

In our conversation, Higgins noted the social services load carried by Albany and said neighbors paying high taxes are rightly angered by a tax-exempt project that would do nothing to reduce the burden.

It's certainly true that cities carry an outsized load when it comes to the needy, and we're all waiting for the day when housing for the homeless gets built in, say, Rexford. I also understand that it's natural to be concerned about change near home.

On the other hand, Albany residents fret that the city is rapidly becoming unaffordable, and that trend will only worsen if every proposal for affordable housing — or any housing — is met with opposition. Ultimately, the construction of houses and apartments of all varieties is the solution to rising prices.

CARES, by the way, manages other buildings for the formerly homeless in Albany, including one a short distance from Elm Street. Fahey, the Common Council member, said it is well run and a good neighbor.

More Information Contact columnist Chris Churchill at 518-454-5442 or email cchurchill@timesunion.com Contact Chris Churchill at 518-454-5700 or email cchurchill@timesunion.com See More Collapse

Fahey is still opposed to the new townhomes, because, she said, she's trying to reflect the concerns of her constituents. Fahey also noted the presence of abandoned buildings, derelict lots and, yes, homeless camps not far from lovely Elm Street.

"It's a neighborhood that could still go in either direction," Fahey said. "People have put a lot of work into making it stable, and they want to keep it that way."

Again, nobody should object to residents fighting for their neighborhood, but the assumption that formerly homeless people living in apartments will somehow cause harm is objectionable, at least to my ears.

Elm Street, like the best urban neighborhoods, still includes an interesting mix of people and, like most enjoyable city streets, an interesting mix of buildings.

But Fahey and Higgins both questioned the size of the proposed three-story townhouses, saying they would be out of character with nearby one- and two-unit homes. Though the buildings are allowed under the city's new zoning, similar concerns were raised at the planning board meeting.

That is something for board members to hash out. The townhomes, designed by Harris Sanders Architects on the far side of Washington Park, will also need to undergo a review by the Historic Resources Commission.

But let's be honest. The size concerns would be muted if the apartments were for the wealthy.

This fight isn't about the buildings. It's about the people who would rebuild their lives within them.

cchurchill@timesunion.com • 518-454-5442 • @chris_churchill