245 Bowery from www.BoweryBoogie.com

Recap 245 Bowery proposed full bar license under SRO tenants space

"Last night, the owners of the future restaurant at 245 Bowery held a public meeting for their latest enterprise, currently dubbed “S.R.O.” Turnout was rather abysmal – just five people. Nevertheless, the interaction was informative, and we now have a better glimpse of what’s happening here..." Boweryboogie.com


bowergals 4 weeks ago

So...you want to name this bar after the SRO tenants who live above this site and who will be forced out upon your trendy arrival? In case you are unaware, SRO (in this neighborhood) means Single Room Occupancy. That's where poor people live.
As to “Crash Mansion” wanting the name... remember "The Mission" (now "Kush")? That name was co-opted shamelessly even though it was two doors from the Bowery Mission whose primary goal is to help poor people kick alcoholism. They had to rename it when someone was murdered after a fight there.
Given the rapes and murders that have emanated from the new bar scene-in this one block alone-at least have the courtesy of not using the names of local institutions that serve poor people to give your new middle class establishments the "zing" your patrons crave. Not on the backs of people who can least afford it.
Reality Check 4 weeks ago in reply to bowergals

How would this restaurant force out SRO tenants? The tenant's occupancy is protected by DHCR, HPD, DOB and a slew of other agencies. Their rents are set by the RGB which is essentially a government agency (if not officially.) This, or any restaurant in this space, would have no effect on how much the tenants pay or if they are allowed to stay, stating otherwise (especially when you know anything about this type of housing, which you seem to) is untrue and unfair.
The only effect a restaurant would have on them is the same effect as every other person living in the neighborhood, the potential for noise, traffic etc. Those are legit concerns. Argue them.
"Given the rapes and murders that have emanated from the new bar scene-in" Well considering that the areas violent crimes are at the lowest levels since pre 1980 I would argue that this new bar scene is helping clean up the streets by transforming an area that was once known for drugs and prostitution into a thriving community.
I agree, SRO is a dumb name, but then again most people do not know what it stands for and therefore don't have the associations.
bowergals 4 weeks ago
These same “protected” tenants were given just three years reprieve from eviction from their homes and that only after housing organizations and local residents rallied on their behalf. Many of the residents had been already been given chump change to move - in my opinion, manipulated using their most vulnerable issue as the lever. The judge denied the “certificate of no harassment” because he found a “slew of offenses, including verbally abusing and threatening tenants, and neglecting leaks, chipping plaster and paint and roach infestations.” Do you think they won’t try again to evict them?
People do get kicked out of their communities by the steady drip of harassment and gentrification. And yes, I call that “forced out”.

“SRO” is more than a “dumb” or “tasteless” name for a trendy bar. It trades on the poverty and hurt of real people in order to give its patrons a moment to feel they have “walked on the wild side.” I’d say, opportunistic, oppressive and shitty is more accurate. And the people who do know what SRO means are the ones who live there. They count.

I’ve lived in this neighborhood for over 30 years and I would argue that this community was thriving, vibrant and far more interesting before the arrival of money.

As to violence, it isn’t the bar scene that has aided the lower levels of violence but more police presence and more resources put into the area. And yes, that does tend to flow where the money is, doesn’t it?

Last, please don’t tell me what is a “legit” concern. Being a neighbor means that you fight for your neighbors, especially the ones that are vulnerable. And these guys still are.

Reality Check 4 weeks ago in reply to bowergals
The amount of money they accepted might be chump change in your opinion, but i would bet was meaningful to the residents who accepted it. They didn't have to accept it, they chose to. Have you been in Sunshine? or Whitehouse? The conditions are appalling and dangerous (the place is a fire trap) In my opinion the conditions are inhuman, but that is just my opinion. It was right of the HPD to deny a CofNH in that case, it is a great example of the system working and protecting the tenants. All the points that you brought up illustrate the fact that there are protections in place, one might have to work with the system a bit, but in the end the residents were protected.

"As to violence, it isn’t the bar scene that has aided the lower levels of violence but more police presence and more resources put into the area." which was made possible by the increased property taxes being generated the area's redevelopment. Without these "trendy bars" there would not have been a increased police presence, just like there hasn't been in places like the South Bronx and Bed-Sty.

I didn't mean to insult you with my comment about a legit concern. All I meant was that those are situations that there is nothing in place to predict the outcome of, they are unknown and therefor something that needs to be planed for in a systematic fashion, including community input. I was not trying to be antagonistic.
bowergals 3 weeks ago
I guess this is the crux of it isn’t it? I don’t think the forces of profit are inevitable and I think the work to build and sustain community is vital in the coming times. Our current economic system is not a model of the real power of human beings to create a sensible world. Witness the collapse everywhere in all sectors (financial, transportation, manufacturing, oil energy). Unsustainable greed on the macro level is a juggernaut that even those “in charge” can’t fix. Even if you like greed (I don’t think you do, but even for those who do) the planet can’t handle it. Game over. If we are going to make something that actually works for humans (and that includes creating jobs that have some real use and meaning) we can try to start locally. I’d like to see small businesses opening here that have some real use to the people who live and work here.
The current trend is to build high-rise luxury hotels and the businesses that feed them. Aside from being opposed to that for all the reasons I’ve been airing, this economy just isn’t going to sustain them. This is not a plan. Just zoning arguments: what a developer tries to get away with and what we do to stop them. I’d rather see us think through what we’d like to see here, what is it that could make us a great and truly diverse neighborhood.
If some chose to sit this out and get high there are plenty of places for that here already. For those of us who are interested in the possibilities of the next period, we’d like more small scale sustainable stores like shoe repair shops, affordable grocery stores, hell we could use a good inexpensive diner! But the possibilities are endless.
If more high-end shops and bars are permitted you put pressure on the landlords to evict businesses that lower income residents and workers can still afford. Our small businesses here suffer. Look what we’ve lost already.
Btw, I applaud your thought that you wouldn’t want anyone to live in inhuman conditions, but the result of the train of thought (that people “move to a neighborhood they can afford”) is that they would still live in those conditions (or worse because nobody who knew them would be watching), they’d just be doing it somewhere else.
If there is poverty in this city I guess I’d rather not be insulated from it, so I know what I’m looking at, so I know what I’m not going to settle for. Yes?
bowergals 4 weeks ago
It was chump change to the owners who stand to make a small fortune if they all leave (I heard $25 to $50 later $200? but I’m not certain).
Re: “they chose to [accept it]”…if you are poor that is an odd concept. (Harkens to the quote by Anatole France: “…the majestic quality of the laws, which forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread…” The offerings were exploitive and relied on the particular vulnerabilities of the men involved. Fire trap to you- but neighborhood and home to them. Otherwise I doubt they would have stayed to wage that fight or gone to community board meetings to be heard. Maybe if there were real low-income choices in this neighborhood they’d move. There aren’t, and people have a right to live in their homes.
The “system” you think they can count on would NOT have worked if it hadn’t been for enormous effort and a good bit of luck to have learned about the removal plan in time. It worked because volunteers, tenant rights staff and the guys themselves worked their butts off to make it work, not because this system is “working and protecting” tenants. Is that really a surprise? Who has time to fight all these battles? But people have to or we lose our community and sometimes our homes.
Yes, I have been to the Sunshine. Years ago one of the guys rang my buzzer at 3am. He said into the intercom, “You left your door open.” They’ve been good neighbors. Then and now.

NOT bars, but wealthy people moving in inspired the influx of resource. As I said, there have been many murders and a number of rapes emanating from the bars just in this one block! And yes, they seem to require a police presence that perhaps should be going towards the real crime uptick that involves young people and violence in this community?

Besides, maybe neighborhoods shouldn’t be deemed worthy of protection and help just because wealthy people live there or there is a “tax” base?
I’ve heard the argument about how the wealthy make life better for all of us (despite the recent show of “help” from the financial sector), but if you are kicked out of your neighborhood to make way for this “better life” how exactly have you benefited?
Reality Check 4 weeks ago in reply to bowergals
I never insulted the tenants or insinuated that they are not upright citizens and neighbors. My firetrap/ inhuman comment implied that they deserved better, that no person should have to live in those conditions.

To the rest of the arguments: why a larger/more affluent tax base is better able to afford a larger and more effective police force, why the owner is making so much more then the residents, why $20 means more to someone with only $50 to his name then some one with $50 million, why one does not get to live anywhere they want but must live where they can afford which sometimes means moving to a new neighborhood, those are all functions of a capitalist society, such as the one we live in. sorry, but stopping this bar will not change that in anyway. it will just stop a few people from making a living. the next week they will open a bank branch or duane reade there, which will create less then half the jobs the restaurant would.
bowergals 3 weeks ago in reply to Reality Check
I guess this is the crux of it isn’t it? I don’t think the forces of profit are inevitable and I think the work to build and sustain community is vital in the coming times. Our current economic system is not a model of the real power of human beings to create a sensible world. Witness the collapse everywhere in all sectors (financial, transportation, manufacturing, oil energy). Unsustainable greed on the macro level is a juggernaut that even those “in charge” can’t fix. Even if you like greed (I don’t think you do, but even for those who do) the planet can’t handle it. Game over. If we are going to make something that actually works for humans (and that includes creating jobs that have some real use and meaning) we can try to start locally. I’d like to see small businesses opening here that have some real use to the people who live and work here.
The current trend is to build high-rise luxury hotels and the businesses that feed them. Aside from being opposed to that for all the reasons I’ve been airing, this economy just isn’t going to sustain them. This is not a plan. Just zoning arguments: what a developer tries to get away with and what we do to stop them. I’d rather see us think through what we’d like to see here, what is it that could make us a great and truly diverse neighborhood.
If some chose to sit this out and get high there are plenty of places for that here already. For those of us who are interested in the possibilities of the next period, we’d like more small scale sustainable stores like shoe repair shops, affordable grocery stores, hell we could use a good inexpensive diner! But the possibilities are endless.
If more high-end shops and bars are permitted you put pressure on the landlords to evict businesses that lower income residents and workers can still afford. Our small businesses here suffer. Look what we’ve lost already.
Btw, I applaud your thought that you wouldn’t want anyone to live in inhuman conditions, but the result of the train of thought (that people “move to a neighborhood they can afford”) is that they would still live in those conditions (or worse because nobody who knew them would be watching), they’d just be doing it somewhere else.
If there is poverty in this city I guess I’d rather not be insulated from it, so I know what I’m looking at, so I know what I’m not going to settle for. Yes?

EV Grieve 4 weeks ago
Nice reporting, BB.

And SRO is a tasteless name given the location.