The City of Poughkeepsie Industrial Development Agency grappled with a difficult decision this week, one that former Common Council chairman Frank Mora called “one of the toughest decisions” he has encountered in public service. And when all was said and done, the IDA’s decision to approve a proposal from the city’s Department of Public Works to use the former U.S. Army Reserve site on Oakley Street over three other proposals could hardly be considered the wrong move. But the concerns of the other parties involved in the process deserve further consideration.
The federally owned site was last used in 2005, when a series of military base closures resulted in the building being shut down. The IDA was charged with finding a use for the facility, and four groups applied: the DPW, Hudson River Housing, which proposed housing for the homeless, Beulah Baptist Church, which wanted to create a school, and Dorsey Metrology, which hoped to expand its existing operation. The proposals were each viable, but in a 3-2 vote, the IDA approved the DPW’s plan over the proposal by Dorsey Metrology.
Proponents of the DPW plan, which involves moving its utilities and water divisions, currently residing in trailers on Howard Street, to the space, argued that the decision would save taxpayers $100,000 in rent and an estimated $4 million in construction costs. They also pointed out that the presence of the DPW would help keep crime in check. Those who supported the Dorsey move felt that the business would do a better job of creating jobs and preserving industry in the area.
Both the DPW plan and the Dorsey proposal are worthy uses for the space, but Hudson River Housing’s goals, which couldn’t find favor with a single member of the five-person board, deserved more serious consideration. As Jacki Brownstein, executive director of the Dutchess County Mental Health Association, pointed out, federal law requires local development leaders to consider housing for the homeless as a use for unused military bases. Despite Mayor Nancy Cozean’s insistence that the city was already doing an adequate job of providing affordable housing, Brownstein had a point, and a good one – problems with homelessness in this area are not going away.
By utilizing the armory space as housing for the homeless, the city would not have had to worry about the usual concerns from neighbors who don’t wish to see what they perceive as “undesirables” dropped into their midst. With the armory, there was no existing neighborhood to worry about disrupting and no worries about taking a property currently on the tax rolls off. The consideration of taxpayer dollars in siding with the DPW proposal is valid, but so too is the annual need for more money for social programs. This was a prime chance for the city to dedicate further resources to an area of great need, and although they can’t be faulted for their decision (one look at existing DPW facilities will tell you that new space is necessary), the need for shelter for the homeless is not going away. We urge the city to strongly consider that need the next time decisions about facility usage must be made.
Questions? Comments? Send feedback to the Weekly Beat's editorial board here.