You must log in or register to comment.

k1lk1 t1_j6sbkb8 wrote

> Overall, the outreach process tends to be ineffective because most people living on the streets aren’t interested in city services, Giffen said.

Shit bro you're not supposed to say that out loud


OmegaBean t1_j6sluo4 wrote

As a mental health clinician whose job it was to go into the shelters every day, I don’t fucking blame them. They’re often filthy, staffed by people who DGAF, and dangerous. I’ve had clients assaulted, I’ve had clients’ children assaulted, what little possessions people have are stolen all the time. In my current job I work in a school and I counsel students who live in them, nothing has changed. People need to understand that many homeless do not want these services because they are awful. And they are awful because the plutocrats who run this city would rather throw cash at the police instead of spending it on ensuring that people can have a decent standard of living while they get back on their feet.


Grass8989 t1_j6sm75o wrote

Sounds like we should have a strike system and have harsh penalties for people who commit nefarious acts in shelters.


NetQuarterLatte t1_j6t1v7j wrote

Because of the vulnerable population they should serve, crimes committed inside and near shelters should be automatically upgraded in their severity.

Distributing controlled drugs near a shelter should be treated as severely as doing that near or inside a school.


co_matic t1_j6sqcep wrote

We should provide better conditions for homeless people in the first place instead of adding rules and punishments to the existing awful system.


throws_rocks_at_cars t1_j6st4r0 wrote

/>you create normal thing

/>someone ruins it

/>"Why did you create such a bad thing? >:("


With $5000 a month per bed (far higher than average NY rent), the shelters are almost certainly nicer, or were at one point, than sleeping in a tent in a parking lot. The nature of addiction, mental illness, and desperation made the shelters far worse than they were when they were built.

The solution for this is a strike system with the final strike being institutionalization. It is not fair to shelter-residents who want to put their lives back together to also have to fare against criminally insane, chemically-addicted thieves and assaulters.


co_matic t1_j6sv54u wrote

Shelters were never a "good" thing. They are the bare minimum solution created by a society that believes all homeless are idle criminals who deserve nothing and should be made to disappear.


NetQuarterLatte t1_j6t5gzk wrote

Bare minimum at luxury costs.

The only thing worse than this was the city of SF running a homeless encampment in a parking lot.

They were paying 5k per month per tent to a "homelessness NGO" who was operating that parking lot (3 meals a day, security and portable washrooms)


co_matic t1_j6t63hi wrote


drpvn t1_j6t90ve wrote

High executive salaries at these nonprofits are gross but they aren’t why costs are out of control. You could eliminate executive pay entirely and not make a dent in what the city pays.


NetQuarterLatte t1_j6tm437 wrote

It's probably stuff like this on every level:

Those shelters also provides "other services". For example, imagine how they bill health services for homeless people who lacks any health coverage.

I wouldn't be surprised if a typical shelter-provided "health care check-in" bills the city $400 for a 3 min consultation.


th3guitarman t1_j6tglq8 wrote

You people see big number and froth at the mouth. When have you ever known money set aside for something actually go to their intended target? Wasn't there a big stink about the PPP loans cuz all the large corps sucked up all the money?

And you think the homeless people in these shelters are caked up?

Have you ever spoken to a homeless person? Or do you just read articles written by other heartless assholes?


koreamax t1_j6tvjif wrote

Two things can be wrong at once.


th3guitarman t1_j6u1phr wrote

Yeah, but if we ignore the corruption, i dont feel as bad for also wanting to be corrupt.


IloveSeaFoood t1_j6suxyd wrote

But it’s the homeless that are ruining the conditions of the shelters. Nothing said in the post above signaled to me that they had shitty facilities or no heat, or no food.

No, their complaint was that their psycho roommates were making life difficult by stealing and being violent. So how does throwing more money at the issue solve it. Unless you want to bulldoze market rate housing for homeless shelters so less of them share spaces?


WickhamAkimbo t1_j6tl5ot wrote

> ve had clients assaulted, I’ve had clients’ children assaulted, what little possessions people have are stolen all the time.

Nice use of passive voice as we all pretend that it isn't other homeless people that make them dangerous. If you want to make the shelters safe, put mentally ill homeless in asylums, drug addicted homeless in rehab, and criminal homeless in jail... But the same people saying we don't pay enough for homeless refuse to force people into badly needed treatment.


NetQuarterLatte t1_j6tukc8 wrote

Same people who complain cops keep playing candy-crush, are also the same people who think it's okay for cops to keep arresting the same individuals dozens of times... like a real life candy-crush game.


TarumK t1_j6snqhs wrote

Wait is it true that they're spending 5k a month per bed? In that case how is it underfunded? It seems like the dangerousness must be a result of there being dangerous people staying in the shelters? What is the solution to that?


NetQuarterLatte t1_j6szup9 wrote

>Wait is it true that they're spending 5k a month per bed?

I was ball parking it and being charitable.

For example, take this new 19 Debevoise Avenue (Brooklyn) shelter contract:

It's $467,334,567.00 for 200-beds for 33 years. Open spaces packed with beds and shared bathrooms..

Result: $5900 per bed per month.

Project Renewal is the same operator who runs the shelter in midtown where a woman was stabbed last month (


newestindustry t1_j6trd1r wrote

Wait, so you just took that number and divided it by the number of beds in the shelter and years? What about these other aspects of the project:
-557 homes of affordable housing
-Community facility space
-Outdoor open spaces
-A health clinic
-A senior center
-A workforce development center

Some extremely fuzzy math there. Really dishonest.


NetQuarterLatte t1_j6trq3w wrote

>Some extremely fuzzy math there. Really dishonest.

Those are all separate being developed by other entities.

The awarded contract of $467M was just for "Shelter FacilitIES for Hmlss SINGLE ADULTS" (that's how the contract title is spelled out, I kid you not)

I understand this is hard to believe. Because it's too stupid to be true, right?


newestindustry t1_j6tu5ca wrote

But it's a massive construction project, you are dishonestly saying that NYC pays $5k per bed for homeless shelters, which isn't true


NetQuarterLatte t1_j6tximi wrote

For this Brooklyn one that's $5.9k per bed per month for the duration of the contract.

For the E 45th Shelter, where a woman was murdered by stabbing in December, the city was paying $3.2k per month per bed last year.

They renewed their contract for $4.9k per bed per month ($30,585,745.00 for 130 beds for 4 years: What's worse: the city actually owns that building! Project Renewal is just providing Shelter "services"...

Same company, with a $5.3k per bed per month 39-year long contract

That's just one company out of many deserving more oversight:


newestindustry t1_j6u6upy wrote

All of those shelters are also involved in major construction projects, do those dollar figures include capital costs? Those links don't give anything but one number.


NetQuarterLatte t1_j6u7vaf wrote

If only someone could review those contracts.

Capital costs or not, nothing here makes sense.

Why should the city pay for a NGO to buy the land and construct the building, and when the contract is over, they can just own it?

Besides, the E 45th building is already there, and it’s owned by the city.


newestindustry t1_j6ua4ol wrote

You can't pretend the capital costs don't matter, these are new high rises in Midtown. We all agree there is a lot of bloat on all state/city contracts here, I agree that it sucks and benefits the wrong people. But these organizations reduce the suffering of the most vulnerable, hated people in our society. I recognize that most people here don't care about that.


NetQuarterLatte t1_j6v0bjj wrote

All good and valid points.

But remember that only 1 out of 5 accepted going to a shelter.

With the same budget the city could be offering a lot better quality services and housing.

4 out of 5 whose suffering are not really being reduced.

Simply offering more of the same (or locking shitty solutions into decade-long contracts) ain’t going to really move the needle. It only keeps draining the city’s resources away from more effective solutions.


th3guitarman t1_j6tg4ol wrote

The ability of random suits and profit seekers to suck up funds on the way to the people who need it doesn't equate to an effort being well funded.


TarumK t1_j6tqlv6 wrote

I mean yeah, but there's a difference between something not getting done because it's under-funded vs. because the money getting stolen in corruption. They're different things with different solutions.


th3guitarman t1_j6ttqpt wrote

Yes. I don't know why people (not you necessarily), in a system so obviously hostile to the poor and homeless, don't consider for half a second that the shelters could be run atrociously


DelTeaz t1_j6tadlx wrote

Lol only in nyc can you spend 60k per homeless person and still not have good services.


NetQuarterLatte t1_j6tmzer wrote

It can always get worse.

SF infamously spent 60k per tent at a homeless encampment.

NYC should change course before we get there.


koreamax t1_j6tw1mp wrote

I grew up in Sf and hope nyc doesn't become like that. The reason it can be so hyper liberal is that you have to be rich to live there. All the super progressives are so generous with their ideology because the thought of needing public assistance themselves never enters the equation. It's just something to pat themselves on the back. They don't care HOW these programs are run because their empathy is fake and they feel above it


fieryscribe t1_j6s9rmh wrote

> New Yorkers witnessed more homelessness

First line:

> New Yorkers filed a record number of 311 requests related to unsheltered homelessness ... during Mayor Eric Adams' first year in office, which was marked with high-profile policies aimed at reducing homelessness.

Those are not the same and probably explains why more New Yorkers felt a reason to call.


Astatine_209 t1_j6t9uxw wrote

People actually think their calls might do something is the actual news.


The_Alchemyst t1_j6u6mfv wrote

311 is NYC's super power, I've never been disappointed


JohnBsGhost t1_j6vhvba wrote

I remember coming back from JFK there was an accident and the cops weren’t doing anything and it created over a mile of backed up stopped traffic to the point people started running out of gas. I called 311 and said “hey there are people literally getting stuck on this highway and none of the cops are directing traffic. We need this cleared or it’s gonna be a mess” ten minutes later boom. Tow truck. Could have been coincidence but still


NetQuarterLatte t1_j6sg617 wrote

I've been critical of the Gothamist, but I think they are getting closer to a journalistic breakthrough here.

>these requests often do not lead to people actually accepting shelter. Only about one in five accepted such assistance last year, according to 311 data.

That's a staggering low acceptance rate.

Who wouldn't want to stay in a place that costs 5k per month? Because that's about how much NYC pays for each congregate housing bed around here.

These people are either all insane, or that acceptance rate really speaks to the bad conditions of what's being provided.

Any reasonable tax payer in NYC would like to understand how each of those beds can cost 5k per month. And why the city comptroller Brad Lander (a person who has received a lot of favorable coverage by the Gothamist) doesn't seem to have any issue with those shelter contracts.


co_matic t1_j6spvti wrote

Many homeless people avoid shelters because they have tight, cramped conditions and force people into close proximity with others who may be unstable or have drug or alcohol problems. Theft can be rampant and shelter rules and curfews don't work for everybody (especially if they're working while homeless).


throws_rocks_at_cars t1_j6ssh9p wrote

Many other homeless people avoid shelters because they are not able to freely use drugs and alcohol while residing there. Both are true.


AwesomeSaucer9 t1_j702urk wrote

This would imply that, to actually solve homelessness, we should prioritize getting people off the streets into safe housing, without first putting on drug quitting/rehab requirements. Something like putting housing...first?


Fresh720 t1_j75ktin wrote

Yea the housing first approach is vastly superior to treatment first.

People's mental state deteriorates once they're on the streets, and they use drugs to cope. Telling them to stop with the substance abuse while not giving them a safe environment is beyond cruel


mangolipgloss t1_j7d714i wrote

Seattle and Portland (and now Vancouver) have been trying to do "housing first" for some time and it's been failing really, absolutely, terribly failing and more people are dying on the streets than ever before despite there being millions and millions of dollars flung at this effort. Unfortunately, people that are committed to killing themselves and everyone around them cannot be bribed into normalcy.

"Safe housing" is a meaningless phrase because the only thing that makes any housing safe or unsafe is who's in and around the housing. If you fill up a "safe housing" apartment block with people that are mentally unstable, on seriously neurotoxic drugs, that have a history of violence and theft, and that have no desire or intention to reintegrate into society, with zero supervision or expectation for the people to utilize rehab services, well....that "safe housing" is gonna turn into a meth lab waiting to explode very quickly. If not that, then the building gets absolutely wrecked with fentanyl contamination, mold, piss, fecal matter, fires being started indoors, people setting each other's stuff on fire, and the structure literally being taken apart and harvested for sellable resources like copper. Nothing to say for the theft, looting, violence, and terror inflicted on the surrounding neighborhood where these housing "solutions" get thrown up. Entire swaths of the region have turned into ghost towns that turn into skid rows, and the cycle of enablement continues. Which is exactly what's happening all over the PNW.

Source: lived for 24 years in NYC and now live in PNW


AwesomeSaucer9 t1_j7du3kq wrote

Just living in a place isn't really a good source.

Although you do make a decent point about safe housing. That's the reason why a lot of homeless people would actually prefer sleeping on the streets as opposed to shelters, which are often overcrowded, unsafe, dingy, and burdened with a lot of strict rules. The idea behind the Housing First model is to provide people with a single occupancy room, rather than cramping them together. This makes a bigger difference than you'd think.


NetQuarterLatte t1_j6sw659 wrote

5k can afford a private 1br in a luxury condo with doormans, gym and concierge. And that includes the hefty profits taken by the "greedy landlord".

It's definitively not a funding issue. There should be enough funding for the shelter to be plenty safe and comfortable.


Longjumping_Vast_797 t1_j6wom48 wrote

That would requiring some compliance with drug policies. Weak backed politicians and people exhibiting much empathy are preventing real solutions from being implemented.


Turtle_Shaft t1_j6sz0ym wrote

Shelters arent the only place people are getting put into. Many homeless are put in SROs which give a person a private studio room with a shared bathroom/kitchen facilities.


co_matic t1_j6szqdf wrote

Hopefully this becomes the norm sooner rather than later.


socialcommentary2000 t1_j6u1b3n wrote

Nobody wants to take SRO's because it is literally impossible to change the situation once the person is in there. The Rockaways have a problem with this and the solution from landlords is to literally let the entire structure fall apart due to the inability to evict tenants.

I'm not saying it's right but you'd have a higher chance getting brand new housing projects built than getting any landlords on board with willingly allowing SROs in any of their properties.


NetQuarterLatte t1_j6t6vjy wrote

The city should replace most or all of the congregate bed contracts with SROs. Even SROs shouldn't cost 5k/month.

If there's a minimum of oversight, the city would even save money.


FatherOop t1_j6x27by wrote

Yep, they are trying to do this. Building SROs and not congregate housing. It's a pain in the ass to build new shelters in this city, though.


NetQuarterLatte t1_j6y37kg wrote

The city is still planning to build new congregate housing... at prices that could arguably build a 1BR units for each congregate bed.


DelTeaz t1_j6tajkh wrote

Lol homeless people don’t like being next to homeless people? How special


co_matic t1_j6tduiz wrote

Treating all homeless like dirty animals will guarantee that the homelessness crisis will never be solved.


DelTeaz t1_j6teq65 wrote

The homeless problem will never be solved ever. Any time a city offers homeless services it just brings on more homeless people. It’s a continuous cycle. This is literally playing out with the migrant crisis too. We’re paying 500 a night for each of them to stay in hotels.

Maybe some day this city will stop throwing money at people that aren’t even from New York like much of the homeless and especially non citizens at the expense of taxpayers. You guys are lunatics.

How about we limit these programs to the community and residents they’re meant to support in the first place.


co_matic t1_j6tfq0q wrote

It's this kind of thinking that will result in either Dickensian workhouses, concentration camps, or mass euthanasia for the homeless.


DelTeaz t1_j6tgjh1 wrote

Imagine thinking that limiting homeless services to New Yorkers, which is the point I’m making, is a bad thing. You’re delusional. Might as well invade Switzerland at this point given your thinking.


Longjumping_Vast_797 t1_j6worim wrote

Right? People can't see the nuance between some rules that create order and a nazi death camp. Pathetic.


WickhamAkimbo t1_j6tln4x wrote

There are any number of counties around the world that generally speaking don't have a problem with this kind of homelessness. The difference is that they force people into treatment that need it and don't tolerate extremely antisocial behavior.


Ok_Yogurtcloset8915 t1_j6uavb7 wrote

I think the actual difference, in a big picture sense, is that those countries attack these problems on a national level, which is really difficult for anything in the US by design. that other person is sort of right in that nyc offering more services/private rooms etc will not improve its situation, because this will absolutely attract more homeless people to go to nyc. the west coast and hawaii are both experiencing this effect right now.

the situation can never be resolved when every major metropolitan area is essentially in a standoff with all the others over who can be the least appealing to homeless populations. only federal intervention can fix it at this point. I don't know what the path to that is, but cities or states acting unilaterally only leads to an endlessly increasing bill for homeless services.


DelTeaz t1_j6tstbh wrote

And they also don’t have unfettered immigration. No migrant crisis. Their resources are used for their own community.


azeet94 t1_j6tztmk wrote

I would like to better understand how the migrant crisis directly relates to the homelessness crisis? Assuming you're referring to illegal migrants, the vast majority of homeless people I see (anecdotal) are white/black, not Hispanic/Asian (majority of immigrants)


DelTeaz t1_j6u8qgz wrote

Because it’s the same principle. People are coming to the city to seek the services that are being offered at the expense of people in the community. Many of the homeless you see in the streets aren’t from New York.


RecommendationOld525 t1_j6tda8l wrote

It should come as no surprise that not all unhoused people are the same. There are many different ways to be unhoused, many different reasons to be unhoused, and many different circumstances in which those folks are living (e.g. with their family, battling a drug addiction, working one or more jobs, multiple things). There are vastly different things that different unhoused people need, and I think what this article may be getting at is that the city isn’t offering enough of those different resources. (And maybe they can’t.)

For example, there’s a nonprofit that specifically helps women in shelters with financial literacy who have escaped abusive homes where they never learned how to manage money. That is a very specific problem that could make a huge difference for some people. We think a lot about the part where unhoused people may be dealing with drug additions and/or mental illness (I can’t imagine being unhoused for a prolonged amount of time and not having some kind of mental illness considering how stressful that must be), but there is also no one solution to how to handle that.

Yes, there are inevitably some unhoused people who do bad, destructive things, who are incredibly difficult to provide care for because they don’t want it. But I think it’s a bad faith argument to abandon anyone and especially to use those folks as an example as to why other unhoused people don’t deserve to be supported. And I think it’s because of that perspective that some unhoused folks don’t want to be lumped in with others.


NetQuarterLatte t1_j6tvtdt wrote

>It should come as no surprise that not all unhoused people are the same.

That's why they shouldn't be treated all the same.

The city is failing to separate a typical unhoused person from the ones who are violent, suffering from substance abuse, suffering mental illness.

And because the city is failing to separate them, that's creating and reinforcing a stigma, while making things worse for all of them.


Turtle_Shaft t1_j6szim6 wrote

I work in DSS for the city. The congregates vary in quality but the biggest reason people dont want to stay there is because the residents are restricted to the amounts of guests they can bring in and they have to work with social workers who usually try to get them drug rehab help. If you’re a social butterfly and dont want someone bothering you everytime you go into meth induced psychosis in the hallway then you wont want to live in a congregate supportive housing.


uona1 t1_j6t2v0g wrote

What I dont understand though is the city has clearly shown that it can afford to house people in 3 star hotels and that given the right incentive or people they will do so. If they can do it for asylum seeker families why not for homeless?


Ok_Yogurtcloset8915 t1_j6ubw74 wrote

i think the answer is that what the city has shown is that it's willing to pay for people to stay in 3 star hotels, which is not at all the same as being able to afford it


Grass8989 t1_j6vvbeq wrote

Because they only care about the optics of “doing something” for asylum seekers and making Texas look bad for sending them here. “Look we took care of them”.


jakegh t1_j6sufh8 wrote

I can't speak to the city as a whole, but the homeless living on my street are sitting exactly where they've always been. Zero change.

Still better than the west coast, at least they aren't in tents surrounded by open cans of feces.


iv2892 t1_j6tz2h3 wrote

Why is the west coast so bad ? I went to SF in 2017 and at least at the time the homeless situation didn’t seem so bad back then


jakegh t1_j6u2hsh wrote

Don’t know about SF but I have family in Oregon and apparently the Portland government gave out free tents. Nice ones too. Also all drugs are legal including meth and heroin.

It’s been quite an experiment for them.


Ok_Yogurtcloset8915 t1_j6u9ux2 wrote

a lot of places essentially bus their homeless people to California, which means the west coast has been steadily taking in a higher and higher proportion of the chronically homeless as time goes on, and that group really frequently struggles w mental health and substance abuse issues.


SuperTeamRyan t1_j6uxwr5 wrote

This is the same case with NY on the east coast. We get homeless from PA, GA and oddly enough PR shipped to us.


kiwi3p t1_j6yq997 wrote

I'm from Seattle, and while I'm not an expert, I personally think it's because of lack of housing. Portland, Seattle, and LA don't really have public housing in a large capacity. SF has some really old public housing blocks, but they've also been lagging.

Seattle in particular tore down one of it's only public housing projects, Yesler Terrace, and planned to redevelop it. The redevelopment however is similar to what we do here, in that it's market rate housing with some low income properties. This does not make up for the low income housing they displaced. That paired with skyrocketing rents, it's a trickle down situation where people eventually get pushed out on to the street.

Once that happens, there's few opportunities to find a shelter. Seattle also lacks good city run shelters, so a lot of the burden is taken by Catholic shelters in Pioneer Square. Those buildings simply don't have the space, and are extremely restrictive. All of this compounds to a massive population that are basically working for minimum wage, but live on the streets or in tent cities.

Vancouver Canada's Downtown East side is essentially an exacerbated version of this, as the rent spike was quicker there and the salaries lower. It's always been a bad neighborhood, but has just kind of become a dumping ground that the city would like to ignore.

Every city on the west coast kind of follows this model. It all comes down to them not having the services that NYC and many east coast cities started adopting during the Jacob Riis era. Every city in the US is basically capable of having the problems west coast cities have, but haven't had to contend with them because there isn't enough demand to move to those cities.


Meowdl21 t1_j6u8z7e wrote

I was in LA in 2017 and downtown was like nothing id ever seen before. Apparently that has spread to other downtowns in cities throughout CA. Quite something


Longjumping_Vast_797 t1_j6woav4 wrote

I've got family in the bay area, one of whom is Bulgarian and came from poverty. He acts completely ashamed of the way the area is deteriorating. It had changed A LOT.


janandgeorgeglass t1_j6xuxjk wrote

It doesn't really get below freezing in a lot of west coast cities, which is pretty alluring if you sleep outside year round. Also as mentioned by another user, a lot of states have been caught sending their homeless to the west coast with a one way bus ticket.


9943620jJ t1_j6t3w4h wrote

I visited New York from the uk last month and did a lot of walking all around Manhattan, and stayed for a week. Weirdly I feel like I didn’t see that many homeless people; I was expecting it to be way worse. London feels worse than what I saw


[deleted] t1_j6u1xro wrote

Check out Seattle, Portland, or Los Angeles if you want to see the crazy shit with the tents and pallet fortresses.


iv2892 t1_j6tyx92 wrote

New Yorkers tend to be very negative towards their city since I I have memory , but most of them would still defend their city . It’s a pretty cool love hate relationship


brownredgreen t1_j6xqopm wrote

Perception bias is a hell of a drug.

And most tourists from the UK or elsewhere, tend to stick to, well, touristy areas. Politicians tell cops to do more in those areas to keep them "clean" for the tourists.

So i suspect its about what neighborhoods youre thinking of in London, vs which ones you visited in NYC.

That said: the media loves to play up fear, and the homeless cause some people fear (they can be unstable, and unstable people can be dangerous) so the media will happily overblow a homeless situation to get clicks


k1lk1 t1_j6sc3tk wrote

> People living on the street “need access to permanent housing, to quality, voluntary mental health care, and to low-barrier shelters,” Giffen said. “And the city and state are really failing on all three of those.”

Everyone has access to mental health care in this city, as well as shelters, and I'm sorry if you can't walk in drunk or high and cause a ruckus and expect to get a bed, that's just how it's going to be.

And as far as mental health care goes, the street homeless wouldn't be compliant even if they decided to go avail themselves of the care. That's why they're on the street, because they already fell through every safety net we offered.


[deleted] t1_j6sf2tc wrote



Grass8989 t1_j6sfp02 wrote

That would he then rational response, but we have too many bleeding heart “activists” who think everyone should get an unlimited amount of chances with no repercussions. In the end, that only hurts the true “down on their luck” homeless trying to turn their lives around.


[deleted] t1_j6sh8re wrote



k1lk1 t1_j6siqn6 wrote

Yes - people talk of "the homeless" as if they were a monolithic group, but they're not. The vast majority of homeless are willing and able to catch hold of the lifelines we give them, and use them to get jobs, secure and retain housing, etc. That's like 90% or more. These are good people who are simply, as the cliche goes, down on their luck.

The remainder are those too fucked up to take advantage of the help we offer. Offering those people more kinds of help does nothing, they need a firm hand guiding them in a structured mental healthcare or addiction treatment environment, or a prison if they've been victimizing others.


Bison256 t1_j6sym8p wrote

That's a great idea. Sadly there's not enough political will to fund and staff the institutions/hospitals.


newestindustry t1_j6sjfkm wrote

Ah yes, the "Final Solution" for homelessness. Great idea!


NetQuarterLatte t1_j6t2oez wrote

Given the funding, it's not a money problem. It's a policy problem resulting in bad allocation and utilization of the money.

That requires solutions in the policy space.


TranquilSeaOtter t1_j6sjxs6 wrote

As opposed to the final solution of letting them die in the cold?


newestindustry t1_j6skjrp wrote

Yes this is the same thing as putting someone in a concentration camp because they "made a scene at a shelter" (?)


TranquilSeaOtter t1_j6ss94a wrote

We need mental health facilities and commit people who need to be committed. We need to work with those who can integrate back into society with therapy and drugs and for those beyond saving then yes, they and society are all better off if they are committed for life in a mental institution. Pretending that it's identical to Nazi concentration camps is beyond fucking stupid and incredibly offensive to those who survived said concentration camps and families of those who died in them.


[deleted] t1_j6skf7v wrote



newestindustry t1_j6sl5zx wrote

Why do right wingers cite this made-up logical fallacy so often?


ChrisFromLongIsland t1_j6t18qd wrote

It's a misleading headline. New Yorkers reported more homeless encampments than past years not necessarily saw more. Under Deblasio's administration the public knew he would not lift a finger to do anything people did not bother reporting encampments. Now that the public knows the Adam's administration will do something about it they report more even though I would bet there are less encampments now.


AuralSculpture t1_j6sruqu wrote

I thought you all voted for him in droves to solve this? What happened??


MustBeDaMoney t1_j6teqc8 wrote

How fast is he supposed to fix a preexisting homelessness problem for thousands of ppl? Honestly asking because from young til now I aways looked at ppl weird thinking politicians are going to fix fast knowing that for 1 major issue in this city there are probably 10 issues ppl are hounding them about


WickhamAkimbo t1_j6tm1wo wrote

I'm happy to have someone advocating for forcing homeless into treatment that they desperately need instead of charging headlong off the cliff like San Francisco. The problem would be even worse under a progressive mayor, and they'd be scratching their head and wondering why the two dozen open injection sites made things worse.


aetp86 t1_j6tomwm wrote

No way. It was way worse under Di Blasio.


Grass8989 t1_j6sas38 wrote

Why would the gothamist post statistics that how New Yorkers are filing complaints about homeless encampments in record numbers? Wouldn’t that go against their narrative that everyone thinks encampments are fine and encouraged over shelters.


Janus_The_Great t1_j6ssf0s wrote

Why would anyobe expwct it to go down?

Its Adam's, the server of rich and wealthy and friend of police authority and misconduct and fiend to any social/public service/institutions that actually helps the situation. Expect the expected. 🤷‍♂️


GoRangers5 t1_j6t2ztl wrote

It’s disappointing, this is not what I voted for.


hablogato t1_j6u0ola wrote

And New Yorkers will witness more homelessness encampments during the next Mayor's term and the next Mayor's term, and so forth.


DYMAXIONman t1_j6trrj5 wrote

Thinking about how one of the first things Adams did was have the Rent Guidelines board increase rent on nearly 50% of NYC residents.


ooouroboros t1_j6xp9l2 wrote

I can't stand Adams but this is not really his doing - people continue to like to pretend the Pandemic was a thing of the distant past and there have been many rippling effects from it.


nybx4life t1_j72gmn4 wrote

Migrants getting bussed in ain't help either.


ooouroboros t1_j72jb4h wrote

I think I meant to say that too - you are right to point it out.


nybx4life t1_j72l0yj wrote

This one was a political trap either way;

Take the migrants and deal with the financial load and logistics getting them sorted, or bus them somewhere else in this game of hop scotch, and fuel republican talking points nationally.

It would be messed up in general to not take them, especially since it was used as such a political weapon.


Jimmy_kong253 t1_j6smwfw wrote

I feel so bad for those trust fund kids whose mommy and daddy are paying $5,000 a month so they can live in a one bedroom apartment in a trendy part of Manhattan having to see homelessness


ChrisFromLongIsland t1_j6t5odz wrote

I feel bad for the person working overnight as a porter in a restaurant for 40k a year who has to take the subway at night and can't find a car without a homeless person who smells. The same person having to walk by an encampment while they are on their way home from work at 3am but have to deal with a mentally ill person who yells at them everyday while the person has to think to themselves this is why I have to carry a knife for the 1 day the homeless person with untreated schizophrenia has a delusion and decides to attack. For every millionaire trope there are hundreds of thousands of people trying to goto work or school that have to deal with him homeless often. I care about the people who are not rich. These are the silent majority in NYC who have to deal with street crime and homeless way more than rich people.


Silvery_Silence t1_j6ttfnr wrote

Wow it’s amazing that there are any New Yorkers at all who don’t feel like you do. I actually consider it a badge of pride that I don’t knowingly or willingly associate with anyone like you and most people I know here are working people who would not talk about homeless people this way. You know how I feel about most homeless people? Profoundly sorry for them. Have they sometimes been a nuisance to me in my decades of life here? Sure. But my overwhelming emotion when thinking about them is somehow not disgust.


ChrisFromLongIsland t1_j6wng8x wrote

So you support letting mentally ill people who can't help themselves die in the streets? You like the current situation and would want more of it?

Maybe government can to more to fix the situation and help the mentally ill homeless. Or maybe everytime someone actually tries to help they are shut down by people who walk by someone with schizophrenia and thinks wow they are living there best life and anything done to help them is actually hurting them. I think your divisive opinion without trying to actually solve a public health crisis in a relatively small population of people is why nothing substantial is done to help people with severe mental illness who cannot help themselves.


Silvery_Silence t1_j6x66f4 wrote

Of course I support more aid to homeless people. My main problem was that your overall tone regardless homeless people is one of clear contempt. But keep reading sh$t into my comments that isn’t there to make yourself look better. Homeless people yell at you and smell sometimes, poor you.