Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

expressdefrost t1_jduw9fm wrote

Just out of curiosity, by your proposal, where do the homeless go once you “clear them out”, and why is that outcome less dangerous than the one where they’re in an indoor space under police supervision?

2

abelEngineer t1_jdvesc7 wrote

Newark should build a homeless shelter if it doesn’t have one already. I’m not sure why my post necessarily precluded that option. But if that can’t be done, they still can’t stay in the train station. You have to push past them to get up the stairs and they’re screaming at each other downstairs.

Edit: they also have access to NYC homeless shelters

9

Educational_Paint987 t1_jduxins wrote

That would be detention without a crime.

Maybe OP is suggesting they do with them what NYC mayor is doing with thirs...oh wait...it is the same homeless people.

2

expressdefrost t1_jdvbcqz wrote

What would be detention without a crime? I’m saying the current situation is one in which homeless people are allowed to stay indoors with police supervision, if they choose

3

Educational_Paint987 t1_jdvmj9k wrote

"An indoor space with police supervision". The transit police in Newark are not there to supervise the homeless. Rather it is because of the homeless that we have increased transit police. It's for the safety of the genuine passengers. Technically, if you have a valid ticket or you intend to get one they cant get rid of you unless you commit a crime.

The way I see it there is no solution unless you discriminate against people based on looks. Either that or blocking access only to people with a valid ticket for that day but that also means changing the PATH ticketing system.

2

felsonj t1_jdwanur wrote

You can enforce a rule against remaining in the station / loitering past a certain period of time.

1