Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All this means is that the city will keep shuffling them around until a spot is found that keeps them hidden enough to avoid a next neighborhood from complaining.
Most likely put them in a lower income neighborhood thus adding further misery to that lower income neighborhood. If we going to give charity to the homeless the sacrifice has to be spread around. UWS is more affluent. Surely they can handle some more homeless driving down the speculation on their RE.
I don't recall seeing posts from the residents of the South Bronx or Brooklyn complaining about the homeless being imported into their neighborhoods. Every neighborhood in NYC expects to absorb their own homeless population. It becomes an issue when homeless (including mentally ill, addicts, sex offenders) are shipped in from elsewhere, and in numbers too large to absorb, control, or help.
In way the lower income neighborhoods do a kind of absorption. There are a lot of people that live together and fit themselves into dwellings not meant for that amount of people. Otherwise, some of those people will likely be living on the curb. The ones that go to homeless shelter do not even have that support system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 562026
The people that were moved into to the UWS hotels are not undesirable because they are homeless. They are undesirable because of their behaviors. If anyone cannot understand the objections, then they've never lived amongst the threats that these behaviors pose.
From what I seen of these converted hotels is security guards are present. I have not heard of an overwhelming number of incidences involving these shelter hotel guests harassing local residents or doing something unseemly.
The UWS isn't Hudson Yards or Soho. There's NYCHA, SROs, Supportive and HPD housing all over that area. I know because I did meals on wheels there and went into those buildings.
This idea that somehow the UWS is this MAGA hotbed is ridiculous. Maybe the issue in Brownsville or the South Bronx is not so much that there is social housing there rather than the fact that the culture of the area tends to tolerate anti-social behavior more than other areas. Any sort of QOL enforcement brings on cries of "Broken Windows".
i agree with you. the UWS is not a "MAGA hotbed" at all. it's VERY LEFT liberal, which is why people RALLIED for them to stay. if you're on the right, the UWS is not for you. now project wise, NYCHA is pretty much centralized on Columbus or Amsterdam and it's more than just the sprawling Douglass Houses.
The City messed up. They should've took these people in hotels and put em in Supportive Housing in the Bronx
they just dint want to see more poor people every time walked out the front door. The rest is noise. Manhattan is a small island drug addicts, felons, homeless a dime dozen in NYC.
Most likely put them in a lower income neighborhood thus adding further misery to that lower income neighborhood. If we going to give charity to the homeless the sacrifice has to be spread around. UWS is more affluent. Surely they can handle some more homeless driving down the speculation on their RE.
And when that decline in "Speculation" means less tax revenue to help said homeless that'd be okay right?
All neighborhoods should share the burden to a degree, but the ultimate solution would be somewhere upstate.
And when that decline in "Speculation" means less tax revenue to help said homeless that'd be okay right?
All neighborhoods should share the burden to a degree, but the ultimate solution would be somewhere upstate.
I said "Upstate" about a million times... then people here tell me I want to build a concentration camp for farm work . Upstate is not a farmwork, but a lot of unused land which is very cheap compared with NYC. It would accomplish two good things: rid the city of crime/danger, and decrease welfare expenses/taxes.
With massive improvements in chemical treatment of wood in the past decade (to give wood some properties similar to concrete, and making it fireproof), it is now possible to build new construction cheaply and rapidly. The city/state should take a loan to build enough new construction on a cheap land upstate to house 80,000 people every year, then sell the old NYCHA housing for 80,000 people to private owners, and pay the loan. After 10 years of doing that (a) all crime would be removed out of the city, (b) there would be 800,000 people in the city owning reasonably affordable homes in the former NYCHA buildings, and (c) there would be more tax revenue from many more working people/many fewer needing welfare support, so there would be no reason to keep raising taxes.
The welfare crowd is constantly complaining about something, and asking for something different. Now they seem to be asking for lowrise housing (because highrises are allegedly causing them to commit crime :-). So, it would be a perfect time to give them new shining lowrise housing on a land suitable for lowrise housing. That kind of tenants won't keep anything new and shining for longer than a few months, but that will be their own problem in their own new welfare city, not a problem of NYC any more. The only way to save NYC.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Upstate is not a farmwork, but a lot of unused land which is very cheap compared with NYC. It would accomplish two good things: rid the city of crime/danger, and decrease welfare expenses/taxes. 
