April 6, 2006 Issue                                               

©2006 The Chestnut Hill Local

Neighbors challenge New Covenant’s proposed shelter
by KRISTIN PAZULSKI

Marc Stier of Mt. Airy was one of about 170 neighbors to attend the meeting (Photo by Kristin Pazulski)

About 170 community members turned out last week to learn more about the homeless shelter proposed for the campus of the New Covenant Church, and to express concerns.

A variance is not needed for the proposed Families Forward Programs, which would eventually serve 50 families of women and children. But representatives of the city and New Covenant at the meeting, held March 29, sought to assure residents that they would have a voice in the project, which is not yet on a timeline since they are unsure how long the community and planning process will take.

Robert Hess of Office of Emergency Shelter and Services said the proposal is “still very much a work in progress.” Additional community meetings were promised, and representatives of New Covenant and the city said they plan to create an advisory council to meet monthly with representatives from the West and East Mt. Airy Neighbors, Mt. Airy USA, the Mt. Airy Business Association, the Chestnut Hill Business Association and more as appropriate.

Also, they said they would appoint community leaders to express concerns to point persons with the city and New Covenant, and would welcome community members who wanted to volunteer with the program.

Tension was evident, however, between residents and New Covenant at the meeting.

A few people asked how concerns would be handled, noting a situation involving a school that leases space on the campus. They said it took about a year to address the problem of the school’s loudspeaker being too loud and disturbing neighbors.

Others said they didn’t feel that New Covenant was an open member of the community. They said the campus’ security officers often kick pedestrians off the grounds, even those just taking a stroll. New Covenant’s Ben Ellis expressed surprise, saying that community members are allowed to be on the campus.

Susan Segal, who lives nearby on West Gowen Avenue, said, “I don’t feel you’re opening yourselves to the community. I feel like you are doing it today because you want something.”

Ellis conceded that the community is ill-informed about operations at New Covenant, which bought the 38-acre campus in 1993. He said that since purchasing the property, including 14 buildings, the church has invested about $50 million in the property.

The campus houses the multi-purpose sanctuary, senior citizens housing, a business center, a public high school, a charter middle school, a private elementary school, New Covenant Academy (pre-kindergarten and elementary school), the Philadelphia Dance Conservatory, and ministry and administrative offices. It has a congregation of about 2,500 people and welcomes about 1,500 women and children on the campus each day with its various programs.

Under the shelter proposal, Ellis said, New Covenant would be simply a landlord, leasing three floors of its Eagles I building, on the southwest part of the campus, to the city. The building has the capacity for about 85 dormitory-style rooms, each of which could accommodate two to four individuals. The building has kitchen, dining, recreation, laundry, bathroom and office facilities.

The city would run the program, providing such things as health care services and case management through yet-to-be determined agencies. It is likely that job training would be through the People’s Emergency Center. Gloria Guard, center president, spoke at the meeting last week.

Under the proposal, Families Forward I would serve women who are ready for employment, and Families Forward II would be for those who are ready to receive education and employment training.

The goal would be for each program to eventually reach 25 families over several months; at initiation, there would be only five families in each.

Families would be “recruited” from different parts of the city, and would “arrive with a case plan already done and with an understanding of the program,” Hess said.

The children in the programs would have the choice of attending their former schools, with transportation through the school district, or a local school. District officials would help area schools determine how to educate the students with minimal effect on the schools. Educational and conduct assessments would be done before students were placed, representatives told the audience.

Visiting privileges for the families were originally going to be prohibited, but community members expressed concern that families and visitors would then go off-campus to meet. So Hess said the city would consider supervised on-campus.