Three residents of 34 Union Street attended a Housing Commission meeting at Montclair’s Municipal Building on Wednesday, June 28, in an effort to find out what would happen to their homes.
The Montclair Township Council discussed at its last meeting the purchase of 34 Union, listed for sale at $999,000 and described as a licensed rooming house. The council introduced an ordinance authorizing the acquisition of the property. When it returns for a second reading, the public can comment.
The township plans to buy the building, renovate it and ensure it meets zoning codes, and add an extension in the back.
The units built in the new extension would be intended for Montclair’s unhoused population.
Alicia Scott, a resident of 34 Union, said she felt attached to the home she has lived in for 14 years. She attended the Housing Commission meeting with two of her neighbors: Roof Sweatte and Sheron Patronaci.
Scott said she feared that Montclair’s purchase would bring needless instability.
“The longest residencies have been 20 to 30 years,” Scott said. “We are not transient people.”
Montclair’s director of planning and community development, Janice Talley, and Fourth Ward Councilor David Cummings addressed comments and concerns about the plans. Talley was at the Housing Commission meeting in person; Cummings attended via Zoom.
Talley restated the township’s goals.
“The intent is to purchase the building and provide permanent affordable housing there,” Talley said. “Our intent is to improve the units, bring them up to code and expand it. There’s room in the back to expand it.”
Cummings added that no one would be forced to move. He acknowledged that if construction on 34 Union takes place, tenants would be temporarily relocated.
“We are not displacing you outside of finding a place to live by when it is we need to, based on the construction,” Cummings said. “This isn’t a demolition. This is an upgrade of the interior throughout the building.”
Scott questioned why there was a need to make these changes. She said she felt people with lower incomes were being asked to make the biggest sacrifice to accommodate the unhoused.
“We’re not challenging the sale,” Scott said. “We know that’s going to take place. Our concern is the fact that you’re converting the building into affordable housing for low-income folks, when we’re low-income folks and we’ll have to move. You’re displacing us in order to put folks in the building who are already here.”
Cummings clarified the housing in the new extension was intended to serve a different population, the unhoused. Cummings said the existing 13 units should continue to serve as housing for low-income individuals.
“We’re not trying to displace. Let’s say she moves out,” Cummings said of Scott. “That doesn’t mean we’re not looking at that room as a potential place to put another unhoused person. That place should remain for its current population. It is currently providing what I consider to be a great place to live for the individuals that are there. There are other individuals who will have that same need in the future. We should not cut back. If there’s 13 rooms right now, that should be 13 rooms forever.”
Cummings apologized for not making the intentions of this project clearer.
Talley explained the financial need for spending on affordable housing now. When a new development gets constructed in Montclair, they pay into Montclair’s Housing Fund. With all the new developments in the last five years, Montclair has amassed $2.1 million dollars to improve housing in town.
However, if the town doesn’t spend any money within four years, the state could take from the town’s fund and add it to New Jersey’s fund.
“Within four years they could take it,” Talley said. “It doesn’t mean that they will because we spent some of our money. There are some towns that have done nothing. Those are the first towns that New Jersey is probably going to take from. That’s how the Affordable Housing Trust Fund at the state level got funded. They took money from municipalities to spend.”
Right now, the Housing Commission is proposing two projects with a combined cost of $1.45 million. The cost of 34 Union is $999,000. The cost of 14 Miller Street is $455,000.
There are no plans to provide homes for the unhoused at the Miller Street property. The council, at the last meeting, expressed its intention to purchase the building. The owner, HOMECorp, can’t afford to keep the property, and a purchase by the township would prevent the property from being sold at market rates.
Still, residents of 34 Union have questions about what will happen to their homes.
Scott said she believed the culture of the building would be disrupted.
“I believe that everyone deserves safe, well-maintained and affordable housing,” Scott said. “I believe that there was a housing crisis because systems are not in place to support people, but going back to our situation, this is changing. Not only is the physical building changing, you’re changing the character of the building. The population of the building. We are a community in that building.”
Sweatte, also a resident of 34 Union, has apprehensions about the well-being and mental health of unhoused people.
“Will that affect the people who currently live there?” Sweatte said.
He asked what would happen if a person with mental health issues was not taking the prescribed medication or following protocols. How would that affect the people who do not have mental health issues?
“I have reservations about that because I’ve seen some of the people who went through rigorous vetting to programs like the Salvation Army or anything like that,” Sweatte said. “My question really is, are you really helping people?”
Cummings said the town aimed to provide services for people as they are needed.
“We have an intent to make sure we could do this with the proper professionals available – 24/7,” Cummings said. “That’s all we can add. I’m not going to sit here and tell you that someone who may not have taken medications and there will never be an incident. I cannot say that will never happen.”
He also invited a representative from the Housing Commission to join monthly meetings to address Montclair’s homelessness issue. Cummings welcomes feedback from the community.
“To the Housing Commission, we value your input and suggestions,” Cummings saiat “There is definitely a need for you all to be able to be a part of this. We will take time to come up with this plan. We will take the time to come up with a similar plan for those who live there now and those who may be living there in the future. That includes input and consultation and conversation with everyone. This is not going to be some ‘they did this and they didn’t ask us anything’ creation.’”
The Housing Commission will work together to write a recommendation about what to do regarding this proposal for 34 Union. The Montclair Township Council will receive that recommendation ahead of their July 18 meeting.