Upper West Side Liberals Bitched and Moaned

The very Liberals who claim to be for Diversity and Inclusion do an about face when it affects their neighborhood, It's known as NIMBY, Not in My Backyard,

White liberals, the group that constantly accuses others of racism and privilege, are the most racist, privileged group in American society.

So unlike Republicans who welcome homeless to their neighborhoods.

Rupert Murdoch's NYPost. I don't give a shit what they say about anything.

That is why they pay all those taxes. So they don't have to deal with that shit.

Yes, darn right “not in my backyard.” Look, I have nothing but unadulterated compassion for these people, but you can’t just put them in regular neighborhoods. There are probably a dozen islands around New York. Put them on one of those. Build a big dormitory and put them there.

Yeah, I wouldn't be too thrilled with psychos and druggies moving into my neighborhood and shitting and pissing everywhere.

And before anyone accuses me of being an elitist asshole, I think we should bring back all the institutions for the care of the mentally ill that Reagan closed. Those closures are the reason our homeless population has skyrocketed.

People who defend the homeless living wherever they please are fucking insufferable.

Yes, there was a big lovely asylum on one of those islands. I forget what it was called. The building should be renovated and reopened. I’m very liberal and love all people deeply, but this is ridiculous! You can’t have crazy people and all these homeless out running the streets.

I'm liberal and most of these homeless are violent garbage who don't want help. I don't care if they end up on a garbage barge out to sea. If they want help, I don't mind my tax dollars going to help them. If they just want to shoot up and push people onto train tracks, then euthanize them.

I will never be able to have friends stay in a hotel again when they visit. I mean who knows what has stayed there.

R4 How did you equate Murdoch and the Post with this article.? It's in your beloved New York Times.

Suddenly the " liberal" posters have turned into Republicans.

The Upper West Side phonies who preach diversity, wet their pants two years ago when the Department of Education wanted to bus in Black and Hispanics. Shades of Boston decades ago, The Dept of Ed didn't back down.

R9 this is what you get for electing Bill deBlasio twice.

Look at all the rightwing turds stinking things up here.

Fuck you, OP.

You assholes want a civil war?

Fine. The homeless will be on the side of the people you're using in this story and this thread. And they'll rip things off you would rather keep attached.

R7, In New York, Governor Hugh Carey is to blame. He closed mental hospitals with the promise of community services that never happened.

Sorry R12, I was reading yet another post about an article in the NYPost and got my threads confused. And the NY Times isn't all that beloved. Much like CNN they gave Trump a LOT of coverage in 2016. It's a better paper than the NYPost, but that's such a low bar it's practically underground.

All of society demanded the closure of mental institutions. They were considered inhumane. See Nurse Ratched. Often, a new problem is an unforeseen consequence of solving an old problem.

Defund the mental hospitals.

Apparently a lot of the homeless men housed on the UWS were not good representatives of their cohort.

They were sexually harassing women; threatening people, especially women, to extract money out of them; using drugs publicly. Liberal cities need to stop fucking around on this issue and accept that there's a large subset of homeless who are total lowlifes. When the lowlifes demonstrate they can't play nice with others, they need to be placed somewhere away from their potential victims or simply be encouraged to leave town.

The schadenfreude of seeing good liberals freak out when confronted with the reality of their politics doesn't negate that these men are a threat to the community.

In addition to wishing mental hospitals would come back, I wouldn't mind cities going back to expecting drifters to move along once they've alienated everyone.

[quote] The very Liberals who claim to be for Diversity and Inclusion do an about face when it affects their neighborhood

Diversity? WTF does this have to do with diversity? I think you must have tripped on something and fell off the Oscar thread.

[quote] In New York, Governor Hugh Carey is to blame. He closed mental hospitals

Nah. Put the blame where it belongs. It's all Jerry Rivers' fault for climbing that fence at Willowbrook. Er, I mean Geraldo Rivera. Always starting something.

Libtards never account for the unintended consequences of their childlish, kumbaya, free needles for druggies, give everyone everything, Pollyanna policies.

It's why our cities are turning to shit. And it's why Trump will be re-elected.

Latest repoirt says homeless at The Lucerne are being moved to a Long Island City hotel. Now their neighbors can complain.

R25, I am surprised that they were at the Lucerne. I lived there in the 1980s. We were kicked out to make it into expensive condos. How did it become a homeless shelter?

It would be great id someone posted the entire article since it is pay-walled.

I'm liberal for the rights of decent people. Degenerates cannot be placed in decent neighborhoods without risk of harm to the tax paying residents. Many UWS residents had to provide tax returns and sit through interviews before settling into the neighborhood. Having junkies and criminals just dropped into the area is very unfair to the rules of the game.

I guarantee you that the next time there's a riot in the city, the Upper West Side is going up in flames. Hope these limousine liberals are happy with themselves. Their neighborhood just got a big red target now.

How stupid are some of you that you think we aren't liberal because we don't want fucking violent homeless people living near us? I don't want shitty neighbors, so WTF would I want violent, homeless addicts near me? I hate de Blasio and his fucking wife as much as I hate Trumo and his fucking family. I hope they all drop dead.

He and his wife are as dangerous as Trump in how they're trying to destroy this city. I liveD in a safe neighborhood in Brooklyn. I'm now seeing crimes I've never heard about before - not even under Dinkins.

.......

R11, don't worry. NYC says it will pay to repair the damage and replace the beds, furnishings, and fixtures in those hotels. According to the Daily News, the average cost of housing the homeless in these hotels is around $600 / night, when all the damage is accounted for.

SMH. Glad I don't live in NYC. I used to visit a few times per year, but I have zero desire to anymore. What a shit hole.

600 a night? And I don't even doubt it. We just piss money away. I guess it's a way to float the economy because it trickles down directly.

By a show of hands, who DOES want hundreds of homeless people turned out from dormitory style shelters relocated to your block? Overcrowded prisoners, then?

And I bet a number of rooms were not even trashed. Maybe some scabies and bed bugs though!

You complain about the homeless when they’re on the street. You complain about them getting shelter in time of need. You complain about them making shelters of their own and camping out.

Just admit you’re a morally bankrupt selfish pig who has no concern for anyone but your privileged ass.

R36? STFU. I am concerned for homeless people, but not when they're violent and harassing people. Don't act like they aren't given an opportunity to be helped and they reject it in favor of being violent. The mayor is a shit who I wish would become homeless. WTf is wrong with you that you think people working and paying their taxes should have to live in fear whenever they leave their own homes in favor of the homeless who are mostly grown, violent MEN. Not little children in wheelchairs with little puppies in their laps begging for help.

R36. No one is complaining about putting them in asylums in isolated areas far from cites. We need to bring them back, but in a more humane way, with proper oversight. Asylums served a good purpose for individuals and communities when they were run well. People can stay there for rehabilitation, if that's possible, or to live out their days in comfort and care. I think most tax payers support that rather than $600/night in a hotel near their homes.

I like people who say "Oh, you're liberal until it comes to homeless living next door" WHAT? Who in the hell wants homeless people near them? They fall under shitty neighbors no different than someone blasting music or with a barking dog that never shuts up. No, I don't want them near me. I don't mind helping them, but I don't want them in my neighborhood. If we're talking someone who lost their job and wants help, I empathize. If they're a violent crackhead, I couldn't give less of shit. Put them to sleep before they push someone onto the subway tracks.

They’re moving 300 out of 13,000.

R16 Could you please lay off all the ‘you want a civil war, huh?!?’ bluster?

The right wingers in this country have 90% of the guns, it’s like watching a Chihuahua pick a fight with a Doberman.

[quote]People who defend the homeless living wherever they please are fucking insufferable.

Yeah, WTF is this nonsense? I can't just go squat at someone's mansion in the Hamptons.

[quote]The right wingers in this country have 90% of the guns, it’s like watching a Chihuahua pick a fight with a Doberman.

Oh please, most of those idiots see themselves as Rambo, but they're Yosemite Sam. And don't underestimate the numbers. The US military couldn't even defeat the Taliban.

Great article boris!

CUNTY cunt

Oh, how rich.

I hope R36 gets a Big Gulp of diarrhea thrown at him by a homeless person like that woman in LA.

[quote] You complain about them getting shelter in time of need.

I gave two wonderful suggestions at R6 and R9!

Roosevelt island, R9.

Those installations on Roosevelt Island are history. It's a campus for Cornell Tech, now.

They can covert them back.

Javitz Center Hunts Point Out of commission cruise ships docked in the Bronx

People pay thousands in brokers fees, application fees, coop interviews to live in nice neighborhoods. They study hard to get a good job to pay lots of taxes and higher rents and mortgages to live there. All that is out the window when drug addicts and criminals are given the keys to the neighborhood.

Put them on Staten Island. All the closeted Italian mama's boys and firefighters can run out and get sucked off by the homeless and give them a few dollars for drugs/drinks in return. Win/win.

[quote] I guarantee you that the next time there's a riot in the city, the Upper West Side is going up in flames. Hope these limousine liberals are happy with themselves. Their neighborhood just got a big red target now.

Is that a threat? It sure sounds like a threat.

A baby in stroller was slashed by a knife wielding homeless crazy a few weeks ago. It’s fun to make fun of the terrible rich liberals for not wanting that to go on, but come on. We know how this cycle goes. They can afford to move and will and then the rest of us are screwed. We as a city need their money. And letting the homeless run wild and live in their own shit is heartless too.

wow

The self righteousness of anyone who criticizes the UWS for this is so grating. You all want violent homeless men living next door to you? Have at it. And if that makes me “not liberal” then FINE. Guess I’m not.

De Blasio is ruining the UWS with this shit. It’s disgusting. There are hotels out by the airports. House them there.

R57 agreed. And Legal Aid can fuck right off with their threats to sue the city for daring to move them.

People like r36 just play into that NY Post bullshit that just because liberals don’t want to literally sleep with the homeless makes them no better than Republicans.

Republicans don’t want any of their tax dollars helping them or anyone disadvantaged at all, even from a distance. If people can’t see the difference between those set of morals I feel sorry for them. It’s totally disingenuous.

Why did the Lucerne ever agree to this? Did they think it wouldn't be made public? They've ruined their brand. Nobody will want to stay there now. Even if they sterilize the place from top to bottom, guests will still always wonder, "Are they secretly boarding the homeless here?"

They should have turned Governors Island into a homeless city. NYC has enough parks. that park isn't even open year round.

There was a hospital island called North Brother Island that the city shut down in 1960. Stupid.

They have to go somewhere but let's face it - no one wants them in their neighborhood.

Putting violent drug users into pre-war building without good sprinkler and fire systems is a nightmare waiting to happen. A better choice would be conference center hotels.

R60/r61 I honestly don’t know what the solution is but this certainly wasn’t it. Asylums are certainly not “humane” — heck even private mental hospitals aren’t humane, let alone state ones. A good public work program would be the best (and our infrastructure needs it) but let face it many of them either don’t want to or are too mentally unstable to work.

Stay at the hotel heck I wouldn’t even eat at the restaurant anymore...and I used to go there from time to time.

Just put out some poisoned food.

[quote]Upper West Side Liberals Bitched and Moaned

Sounds like the first line of a really pretentious jump rope rhyme.

Upper West Side Liberals Bitched and Moaned

They all loved Evita and then were Patti Lupowned

Put them on the UES and see how that works out.

The liberals in The Hamptons would be glad to have them. They'd fit right in.

Nobody wants them anywhere near their own home. This is not a real story.

Exactly, R59. I don't mind paying taxes to house homeless people, but sorry, I don't want them living next to me. I don't even want a rich asshole who has a party every week living next door to me, so WTF would I want homeless people? No one wants certain people living next to them. I don't care about race, religion, etc. I care if you you keep your property clean and you're a good, respectable neighbor.

I live in a pretty mixed area - mostly Asian, Italians, Irish and Arabs (Muslims and Christian). It's been a safe area for decades, but because of this disgusting mayor and his cunt wife being focused on nonsense, crime is starting to creep in. I fucking hate them.

Put them in dormitories/barracks/cabins out in the country or desert on farmland. If they want to they can work picking fruit to earn money or if not they can just hang around, watch TV or play ball games. Medical staff on site and low-key security to keep things getting out of control.

When Rikers finally closes, that structure is sure large enough to house the homeless.

The problem is, DeBlasio has created LOTS of pencil pushing useless high paying jobs, the kind jobs which pay very well, but maybe even one person could do the jobs of 5-10 people, yet he will never admit that big mistake. The salaries of these useless jobs could certainly be used to house the homeless. The amounts the city pays to house the homeless at SRO hotels is ridiculous, those dumps should never be so costly.

Now, DeBlasio is threatening to gut jobs which are needed, such as MTA workers and other essential jobs. Right now, especially now, the MTA cleaners are needed to keep the trains clean due to Covid-19.

Instead of firing all the useless MTA executives and the most absurd and useless jobs of all, 'consultants', these people do nothing except garner huge paychecks, DeBlasio threatens to gut needed jobs? He's an epic failure.

Buy them a one-way bus ticket to San Francisco.

[quote]Now, DeBlasio is threatening to gut jobs which are needed, such as MTA workers and other essential jobs.

These people can't do anything for de Blasio personally. He's employing high level consultants because when he's done being mayor, he needs to call on these people to get him a job. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

Is the island where they kept Typhoid Mary still unoccupied? I believe her house is still standing.

Let Mrs. DeBlasio figure this out with the $600 million that she grifted from the taxpayers.

[quote] Those installations on Roosevelt Island are history.

Just build them on some other island then. Send them to Greenland. Nobody lives there anyway.

UWS liberals complained about homeless people behaving antisocially. Most homeless people could move in and you wouldn't notice. Please don't pretend they're all the same.

The drug addicts, public masturbators and petty vandals need to be handled differently. They're dysfunctional. It's not as though a little help from the government ore social agencies will help them lead full lives. BdB and/or his lackeys knew better than to stash these creeps near expensive real estate. Some sort of dormitory in an otherwise industrial area or warehouse area might work.

P.S. I've been homeless.

We used to have state-run residential psychiatric villages in this country, but they're long gone. Every state had them, I know CT had at least three. It's just a fact of life that there are some people in our society who are severely mentally ill and they will never be able to take care of themselves and need others to take care of them. That's what these residential facilities were for, but they mostly went out of business in the 80s, with a few exceptions.

This thread is so cringey. You’re all totally brainwashed by tabloid culture that paints homeless people as the boogeyman while simultaneously gushing over some random neighbourhood (in a city you all claim to hate) and the associated wealth that lives there as if it’s aspirational based on solely that. Give me a break.

Guess what, I can find an example of a crime committed by a man that lives in an apartment. That doesn’t mean that all housed people are violent. You want to live in a city you live in a shared space. People in America treat homelessness as a problem insofar as the problem is that they have to look at it, rather than it being a problem for people that are homeless. It’s so self involved. But wait who am I talking to of course you’re all self involved.

r79 these are violent, degenerate people who are a danger to the public. It's not the same situation that you're talking about.

R80 I suppose that depends on your interpretation of degenerate. I’d say people forming an organization to get homeless people out of accommodation provided to them to keep them safe from a pandemic Is fairly degenerate but each to their own.

I wonder about this supposed “violence” also. I’ve heard lots of “a woman on her way to work was threatened” and of course the upthread “a baby in a stroller was slashed” (!!!!) to which I could provide any number of examples of rapes or murders by housed people but what would that achieve.

I also saw “potential victims” upthread as a reason for these people to be moved. Are we onto penalizing people for potential crimes? This is just tabloid propaganda - we all know it. These people need a break in life.

[quote] I suppose that depends on your interpretation of degenerate. I’d say people forming an organization to get homeless people out of accommodation provided to them to keep them safe from a pandemic Is fairly degenerate but each to their own.

You are a hypocritical POS who would change your tune IMMEDIATELY if these people, many of whom are mentally ill and/or criminals, were moved en masse into YOUR neighborhood and were pulling down their pants, pissing and shitting on the street, threatening and/or physically attacking residents, etc. in YOUR neighborhood.

[quote]I wonder about this supposed “violence” also. I’ve heard lots of “a woman on her way to work was threatened” and of course the upthread “a baby in a stroller was slashed” (!!!!) to which I could provide any number of examples of rapes or murders by housed people but what would that achieve.

Your "logic" is idiotic. Do you actually believe this shit?

[quote]And before anyone accuses me of being an elitist asshole, I think we should bring back all the institutions for the care of the mentally ill that Reagan closed. Those closures are the reason our homeless population has skyrocketed.

Exactly, that long-ago act on Regan's part was probably the single major catalyst to what has become a truly horrendous situation.

[quote]You’re all totally brainwashed by tabloid culture that paints homeless people as the boogeyman while simultaneously gushing over some random neighbourhood (in a city you all claim to hate) and the associated wealth that lives there as if it’s aspirational based on solely that. Give me a break. Guess what, I can find an example of a crime committed by a man that lives in an apartment. That doesn’t mean that all housed people are violent.

OF COURSE it doesn't mean that all homeless people are violent, nor does it mean that all people who have homes are not violent. The point is that a very large percentage of the homeless are mentally ill and/or criminals, for reasons that should be completely obvious to anyone who's not a total idiot, as you so obviously are. And if anyone here is brainwashed, it's you, assuming there was a brain there to wash to begin with.

R82 I lived on the border of skid row in LA for a couple of years. I would pass through cycling or walking to downtown twice a day at least. I never experienced any aggression from the homeless population. Yes they are underprovided for in terms of bathroom facilities nice of you to point that out. I would suggest that you are not cut out for city living.

What this boils down to is a question of empathy. You either have it or you don’t. Most of you don’t. R83 you don’t. You’ve explained the unfairness of homeless people being mistreated by the actions of other homeless people and then you endorse that behaviour.

One final point would be that a lot of commenters seem to be particularly bothered that these homeless people were placed in a more expensive hotel in a wealthy neighbourhood. The logical extension of this is that you all think that people living in poor neighbourhoods deserve to suffer from this “violent degenerate population”. If anything shouldn’t a wealthier neighbourhood be better equipped to deal with problems?

[quote] The logical extension of this is that you all think that people living in poor neighbourhoods deserve to suffer from this “violent degenerate population”.

Nobody said that.

[quote]If anything shouldn’t a wealthier neighbourhood be better equipped to deal with problems?

That makes no sense. They're a public nuisance and in many cases a danger. It doesn't matter if the people they're harassing are rich or poor. And why should this be the responsibility of private citizens anyway? Nobody deserves to live around these people.

[quote]What this boils down to is a question of empathy. You either have it or you don’t. Most of you don’t.

No amount of "empathy" can help these people. They are severely mentally ill and/or their brains are completely fried from drug use. They are antisocial, violent and psychotic. They are beyond help. No amount of therapy or medication is going to be able to "fix" them. They do not belong in the general population.

R85 “logical extension” means that nobody has to say it. It’s an extension of the logic. It goes unsaid. Jesus.

Annoying neighbours everywhere are a public nuisance and in many cases a danger. An old neighbour of mine used to sell drugs out of her apartment. Did I lobby to have the whole apartment building emptied because of an association to her?

[quote]“logical extension” means that nobody has to say it. It’s an extension of the logic. It goes unsaid. Jesus.

No, it is not a logical extension. Getting rid of homeless that are a public nuisance vs. getting rid of poor people is not a logical extension of that argument.

R88 that’s not what I meant in the first place - le sigh.

Le sigh yourself, that's what you stated in your post above. That getting rid of "poor people" is a natural extension of wanting violent homeless removed from a neighborhood. That is not a logical extension of that argument.

R90 no what I meant was that there seems to be an acceptance here that it’s fine to house homeless people in ‘shitty’ neighbourhoods rather than ‘upscale’ neighbourhoods. That poor people deserve worse living conditions by virtue that they are poorer and that wealthy people deserve better treatment (no homeless placed in their areas). That’s what I meant. Duh.

"Put them in dormitories/barracks/cabins out in the country or desert on farmland. If they want to they can work picking fruit to earn money or if not they can just hang around, watch TV or play ball games. Medical staff on site and low-key security to keep things getting out of control."

Yes, absolutely, move them out of NYC and move them to inferior places. Those states need to know their place in the pecking order. WE come first! After all, we gave the world Donald Trump, Bernie Madoff, and Rudy Giuliani - great contributors to civilization. We shouldn't have to deal with riff-raff like the homeless. We're too good for that.

[quote]no what I meant was that there seems to be an acceptance here that it’s fine to house homeless people in ‘shitty’ neighbourhoods rather than ‘upscale’ neighbourhoods. That poor people deserve worse living conditions by virtue that they are poorer and that wealthy people deserve better treatment (no homeless placed in their areas). That’s what I meant. Duh.

Nobody has said that on this thread.

r92 that poster meant that they should be moved away from the general public because they are a nuisance and a danger. Which is true.

R94 just because you find someone to be a nuisance doesn’t mean you get to decide where they go. The entitlement! It’s fascistic. I don’t think you should be allowed near other people but I don’t have a say in that (unfortunately!).

R94, it really doesn't come across that way.

"Put them in dormitories/barracks/cabins out in the country or desert on farmland"...... (but not in our sacred city).

[quote]just because you find someone to be a nuisance doesn’t mean you get to decide where they go. The entitlement! It’s fascistic. I don’t think you should be allowed near other people but I don’t have a say in that (unfortunately!).

Maybe nuisance isn't the right word, but it's a total safety/quality of life issue. I suspect you don't live in or near these neighborhoods. When the entire population of a neighborhood is up in arms, that generally means there's a problem and they shouldn't just get over it.

R93

“ People pay thousands in brokers fees, application fees, coop interviews to live in nice neighborhoods. They study hard to get a good job to pay lots of taxes and higher rents and mortgages to live there. All that is out the window when drug addicts and criminals are given the keys to the neighborhood.”

“ Degenerates cannot be placed in decent neighborhoods without risk of harm to the tax paying residents. Many UWS residents had to provide tax returns and sit through interviews before settling into the neighborhood. Having junkies and criminals just dropped into the area is very unfair to the rules of the game.”

A homeless guy camped out in the foyer of a friend's building, he was shooting up and shitting in the hallway. The cops came and got him, but not without a struggle. It's fucked up.

What's problematic about those statements r98? Those posters are 100% correct. Nobody deserves to live around these homeless.

Of course city residents should have a say in where the homeless go. They are literally paying for their housing. What kind of troll is arguing against a solution to this problem?

I don't think our "empathy" poster who is wagging his finger at everyone understands that these homeless men are beyond help and cannot be rehabilitated. And they have no right to be around the general populace.

R97 I already mentioned above that I’ve lived right next to skid row in LA for a couple of years. I never experienced aggression from any homeless person and I used to pass through there at least twice daily either on foot or bike. Honestly I think you’re all just scared of these people because you’ve been told to be by the daily mail.

It’s so funny how your type of person turns homelessness into a problem for yourself, and not the homeless themselves. You’re totally self involved - i feel like I’m repeating myself but none of you have any empathy.

R102 drug rehabilitation programs and mental health services and proper healthcare would (And do) help these people actually. Why do you think some countries have higher rates of homelessness than others? It’s because of services being provided (or not being provided in this case).

[quote]drug rehabilitation programs and mental health services and proper healthcare would (And do) help these people actually.

You think many of them haven't been there before? Again, they're beyond help. They will never, ever change. I can't believe how dense you are.

[quote]I already mentioned above that I’ve lived right next to skid row in LA for a couple of years. I never experienced aggression from any homeless person and I used to pass through there at least twice daily either on foot or bike.

Well good for you but your personal situation is not relevant here.

R101 they do - through their elected officials. Through appropriate public organizations. This group in the link is a small group of loud nosy entitled assholes. It would be like if you & most of the posters here met up irl. You really think you should be allowed to tell someone where they can live just because you earn more money than they do.

The empathy poster, whose empathy is reserved solely for the homeless and can’t spare any for people who are being harassed or abused by them, is exhaustingly obtuse. I hope someone flings shit in his direction one of these days.

[quote]We used to have state-run residential psychiatric villages in this country, but they're long gone. Every state had them, I know CT had at least three. It's just a fact of life that there are some people in our society who are severely mentally ill and they will never be able to take care of themselves and need others to take care of them. That's what these residential facilities were for, but they mostly went out of business in the 80s, with a few exceptions.

Reagan put an end to that. Blame that motherfucker for a lot of what's happening now. That disgusting man was about deflection and division.

Actually, the dismantling of those facilities started in the 1970s with the ACLU and well-meaning liberals. Reagan really put the nail in the coffin though.

R107 someone that doesn’t have an address or a roof over their head needs more help than those that do. If you think that’s obtuse then I don’t think there’s any help for you.

You’ll also find that often when someone feels “attacked” by a homeless person what they really mean is that the interaction was really only them being asked for change or food or something. People (like you probably) are told to be scared of homeless people by silly tabloid media and therefore they overreact to encounters with them.

What a stupid troll thread created for people who are to daft and stupid to not realize that people are right through their stupid troll tread and stupid manipulation tactics.

Fuck of, stupid twats. Go back to FOX, where your idiots await you with open wallets, and a har of Vaseline just in case you’re feeling frisky?

There are two different things being talked about here. The homeless poor and the homeless who are mentally ill or addicts. The first are in that boat because there is a huge shortage of affordable housing, especially in large coastal urban areas. There is also massive inequality in income in our nation, so that many people work for minimum wage and are always one paycheck away from homelessness.

The second group exists because there is a dearth of resources for the mentally ill in our country. According to many studies, up to 1 in 5 people in the US suffers from some degree of mental illness. Let that sink in. Maybe one in 20 has such serious mental illness that he presents a danger to himself or other people, but in fact, most mentally ill people are in more danger from others than others are in danger of them. How many mentally ill are set upon and even beaten to death by teenage boys looking for kicks? Lots and lots of them.

The third group exists because drugs and alcohol are readily available - far more available than rehab facilities. Nearly one out of 10 people is a functional alcoholic or drug addict in the US. We've all had examples in our own families. Sufficient money and supportive families can shield many from homelessness - but without money or a supportive family, most of these will end up on the street at some point or other.

The answer of course is MONEY ......lots and lots of money. But people are reluctant to pay these kinds of costs, which would mean higher taxes. They are not reluctant to pay the police, prison, and other costs for the end result, and in fact, those costs in taxes are probably higher, but most people haven't done the sort of calculation that would prove that to be the case.

Again, rehab only works for people who want to get sober. Many of them don't .

R100 I’m not really sure what’s wrong with those statements either. If I want to live on Park Avenue, is have to pay for it. I can’t do I don’t. We all live the best that we can afford and we pay more in taxes to be in a safe, clean, area, and not feel harassed. I mean duh.

And yes, to answer someone’s question, the homeless (and even not the homeless necessarily) are acting much more aggressive and crazy and dangerous these days. The deli I go into everyday has had several instances of crazies coming in and screaming and accosting people where the police have had to be called. Has never happened before until now.

I’m hyper-aware of my surroundings now wherever I go in a way I absolutely never had to be before.

*I have to pay for it *I can’t so I don’t

Funny how most of the liberal celebrities based in NYC suddenly started renting homes outside of the city when this mess started.

I’m a liberal, but this was just fucking stupid to think moving the homeless into nice hotels/areas was good idea.

Everybody who had any money decamped from NYC to the Hamptons or wherever months ago.

This article is a mess because that neighborhood is not even liberal. There are tons of conservative on the UES if only little c. As a matter of fact, doesn’t Rupert himself live up there? Steve Manuchin? Larry Kudlow. They all live up there with a lot of stuff rethugs. Who were probably behind the push. Nypost shamed these people every day.

to say that the entire neighborhood is liberal is just not accurate.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

When did the word “empathy” come to mean, “You have to do what I say”?

Euthanize them. They're never going to get back on their feet again nor do many of them even want to.

Look, I’m a very compassionate person. But homeless/poor people are terribly unsightly. You simply can’t have them running the streets. I say we should send them all to Greenland.

The government should be campuses for the the homeless. The ones who are capable and willing to work can have jobs keeping up the campuses and maybe light productive things - such as work that prisoners do. They live on campus and have freedom but must respect normal working hours and habits like the rest of us who hold down jobs. The homeless who refuse to work are in fact committed to lock down psychiatric and drug treatment sections of the campus. They can leave but they must go 40 km away from the campus. The localities who have such campuses can pass no loitering laws. All homeless people must pass through the campus and either work, or be instutionalised and get better enough to work. Or, be exiled from the area. So they can be free to go to another place. Lets say they go to another state that doesn't have such campuses (camps!). Tough shit for that area. If they had a campus, the could also pass no loitering laws.

should build campuses

People who are genuinely empathetic don't go around bragging "I'm empathetic and you're not!". I suspect those who brag about their empathy like having lots of homeless people on the streets so they can show to the public by making a big show of giving a homeless person a handout (whether it be money, food, whatever). Such people are not invested in finding solutions to the problem because if homeless people were removed from the street they would lose an audience to show off for.

I doubt it can be done given current laws on committing the mentally ill, but in a more ideal world, there would be long term mental health facilities that could shelter the hard core mentally ill homeless people. As we will never have much in terms of meaningful gun control laws, these facilities could be funded by revenue generated from firearm sales and gun licenses. Also having such facilities would employ people in such jobs as food service workers, housekeeping, nurse's aides, and building maintenance.

If the mentally ill and addicts were placed in such facillities then more attention could be paid to those who become homeless due to economics. These are people, who if given a few breaks, would be able to maintain a home and hold a job. As of right now they are lumped in with the hardcore mental cases and addicts and low level career criminals, groups that have little if any ability to hold jobs for long or maintain their residence.

It sounds like the Lucerne is the city’s newest hot spot!

You have to practice yoga for years and bend like a pretzel to come up with excuses why these druggies and criminals make appropriate neighbors in any area where hard working people live. The very poor don't want them either but have been stuck with them forever. This is why they strive to get out to better neighborhoods and then are disgusted to learn that these chronically homeless are given the keys to the best neighborhoods by the DeBlasios. Very messed up place these days.

I thought Hillary cleaned up NYC as a senator.

R117, most people are back from the Hamptons now. Some stayed/are staying, but most are back.

I’d say that New Yorkers can deal with unobtrusive panhandlers and homeless people. The guy on the corner with a sign, the lady with her shopping cart sleeping in a doorway is fine. When they get aggressive and shit/pee in public and confront passersby and perform sex acts on the street, it’s not okay.

I don’t get how it’s a stain on liberals to object to that.

R128 No, that was Ghouliani as America’s Mayor 😆

Here's a place with many vacancies that is used to housing vagrants and drug users. Put them there.

Repurpose dead malls just off freeway exits.

Donation areas in the parking lots, for food, clothing, furniture, household goods, bikes, etc.

Gardens and composting bins in former parking lots.

Greenhouses on the top floors, or roofs.

Except for those pesky liability concerns ... pink hearts, yellow moons, orange stars, and green clovers!

Maybe if New Yorkers had been smart enough not to elect this asshole mayor you wouldn’t have this mess.

Lolol at the person who casually lives “next door to SKID ROW” and has never has an issue with homeless aggression.

GOOD FOR YOU GURL. Come claim your liberal queen of the year prize.

But I didn’t sign up for that shit though when I moved to the UWS and pour over half my paycheck into my rent. That’s reality. I don’t want a bunch of homeless junkies laid out on the sidewalk shitting everywhere. And if I was a frau with kids I sure as shit wouldn’t want the registered sex offenders in this crew of homeless men to be that close to the schools. And read the articles - it’s not cute statutory rape sex offense BS, there are sex offenders with child victims. BdB is a piece of shit.

Again - call me conservative, tell me to go watch Fox News, blah blah blah bullshit. You gurls are liars or masochists if you want hundreds of homeless junkie men moving in next door. NIMBY indeed.

And I’ll just add - if this was converted into a family shelter or a domestic violence shelter - there wouldn’t be the same extreme reaction. But no - domestic violence victims and their children are in some horrible shelters in dangerous parts of Brooklyn. And the family shelters are largely in Times Square and across from Penn Starion.

BdB only offered the best of the best to the junkies.

^Sing it, sister!

Is Bill DeB trying to ruin NYC out of spite? He seems like a total psycho.

R134, nearly EVERYONE in Manhattan lives a block or two away from squalor. And every street bum gets to live in a glamorous and exciting city filled with millionaires. We live cheek by jowl.

It’s something we accept, up to a point. What happened on the UWS is beyond the point for many. I’m not sure if you’re reacting to my comment, but it seems like it.

And for the record, I despise BDB and his racist band of merry thieves. They should let all these skels sleep in their guest bedrooms.

I also think it’s hilarious that I’m simultaneously a Boris deplorable and bleeding heart liberal defender.

Only on DL.

R127 ‘hard working’ please.

And everyone acting like they haven’t given a blowjob outdoors or taken drugs at some point in their lives. Gimme a break.

R129 - no wasn’t responding to you at all. Agree with you.

R136 YES.

Well, Century 21 stores will soon be available for occupancy.

R138, also you're a bitch, you're a lover, you're a child, you're a mother, you're a sinner, you're a saint.

Do not feel ashamed.

Taxpayers are getting ripped off. The rooms are being booked at rack rate, with no discounts.

The homeless "guests" also get free meals.

[quote] And every time one of these temporary guests check in, a company down in Texas pockets a $27 per room, per night fee.

The firm, Crewfacilities.com LLC, also bills the city $18 for every breakfast, $19 for every lunch and $34 for every dinner provided to the guests, according to records obtained by THE CITY.

I should pretend to be homeless so I can live rent-free on the UWS and get free meals. Sounds like a pretty nice gig!

Backing away slowly from the skeevy creep @ R139.

The nerve of these people to not want to be accosted by junkies and step in piles of human shit! They're such terrible people!

Mayors Bloomberg, Giuliani, and even Dinkins would never have wasted such large amount of taxpayer dollars as this clown. There are other ways to handle the homeless, including using retired cruise ships that are in Hunts Point and converting abandoned warehouses. Too much waste going on here.

[quote]There are other ways to handle the homeless, including using retired cruise ships that are in Hunts Point and converting abandoned warehouses.

Or putting them on a garbage barge and sending them out to sea.

Just kidding. Kind of.

R145 yes and while you’re at it don’t forget to take advantage of the 47year life expectancy. And don’t attempt to try to vote you won’t be allowed. And if you’re on the west coast let us know how that unfiltered air will damage your lungs. What an easy life these homeless people lead.

Mister "Compassionate" seems to earnestly believe that homeless people cannot be dangerous, and cannot be criminals. Somehow being homeless morally purifies them.

Anyone else, from a CEO to a sewer worker, could commit violence. Anyone else could hurt or harass someone. They're only human, after all, and we know how awful humans can be.

But not homeless people. They are always innocent. Exalted beings, they. The UWS is lucky to have been graced by their presence!

R134 you do know there are homeless shelters in existence on the upper west side already? So you’re first of all dumb enough to pay over half your income in rent. Second of all dumb enough to not do any due diligence about the neighbourhood you moved into. Third dumb enough to come on here and throw a hissy fit about something you know nothing about. You’re embarrassing yourself girl log off and go outside.

People who "are dumb enough" to pay half their income in rent DO NOT qualify for all the freebies the people who elect not to work (According to AOC) get from NYC. Why should they work if they get to live free and have plenty of money to spend on weaves, wiglets, nail salons, Jordans, iphones, and vacations. Nice lifestyle for the chronically poor in NYC.

R151 you’re misrepresenting what I’m saying. Homeless people like all people (as you mention) can commit violent crime. What I’m saying is that it’s unfair to punish all homeless people based on some of them being violent. And I would say the same for any population group.

However I do believe that rates of violence in homeless populations are exaggerated and certain irresponsible sections of the press give far more coverage to crimes committed by homeless people than crimes committed by housed people (it’s not a coincidence that the daily mail has been linked to several times).

But I do think homeless people deserve more help in terms of both emergency and long term social services than housed people. Because they need them more. I don’t think that should be so extraordinary a position to take but then again I don’t think ‘compassionate’ is a slur so go figure.

I have a huge issue with the homeless in general and with this shit mayor and the fact that crime has gone up, but I am absolutely tired of the nonsense about some mass exodus. My neighbor is selling their home. They just recently put it on the market and countless people have come to look at it. And it's not cheap..

I also love this guy:

r150 it's "pretend" to be homeless, not actually live the lifestyle.

[quote] I should pretend to be homeless so I can live rent-free on the UWS and get free meals. Sounds like a pretty nice gig!

It's better in San Francisco. You get free alcohol and drugs - and you don't pay a dime. It's one big party!

[quote] The city-sponsored guests also receive personal grooming, sanitary, and cleaning supplies, three delivered meals, and laundry service for clothes and linens. Contracts last between 90 days and two years; by that point, the guests may be able to claim de facto permanent residence.

The Mark Hopkins Hotel is a luxury hotel costing up to $500/night. Guests may share facilities with homeless hard drugs users:

[quote] “Do I look scary to you?” the man demanded. “They’re trying to evict me because I wanted more towels but I’m homeless! They called the cops on me.” He dashed out the door and around the grand circular entrance, where two police officers attempted to resolve the situation. Soon a cab pulled up and an inebriated couple emerged, holding full plastic trash bags. They fought, screaming at each other until the woman entered the lobby and her partner lit a meth pipe in the garage area.

[quote] And don’t attempt to try to vote you won’t be allowed.

Why should homeless people be allowed to vote?

R148, Mayors Bloomberg, Giuliani, were so up the asses of landlords and developers that they caused people by the thousands to end up homeless and you think their kind of cruelty is the answer. Not every person who ends up on the streets starts out using drugs or being mentally ill but living that kind of hopeless existence does things, things you can never dream to the human spirit and brain, hell even dogs and cats who are homeless act very differently from those who have good homes and are wanted and loved. I can't believe you suggest some of the biggest causes of homelessness in NYC are the answer. Have you ever seen the kind of apartments they try to put the homeless in? They are rat infested, filthy and dangerous, not just from the people around them but dangerous for fires with all kind of broken things. They usually have no heat or hot water, if any water at all and believe me you would die before you would bathe in the tubs/showers in those apartments. You think that's real help. Can you imagine what it's like to wait for years sometimes for help and they tell you they got an apartment for you and that's what you get? Some of these placements include women with young children.

I was a social worker. I know what I'm talking about. I left because I couldn't take that there was no real help out there for the poor, mentally ill or not. No help. Just one filthy dangerous placement after another.. Yet they give billions to billionaires. That's really where your precious tax dollars are going.

Work in the system for a few years and then judge.

R160, your post was tl;dr but I just think the homeless/poor need to be put somewhere out of sight. You can’t expect people with beautiful homes and beautiful things to have to look at that. I’m a very compassionate person and feel very sorry for these homeless/poor people, but it’s enough.

From R158:

[quote] Nevertheless, concerned inside sources report destroyed rooms and rampant illegal drug use. In one hotel, guests are given needle kits and are advised to call the front desk before shooting up; there have been four deaths in the last few days. Sharp containers have been placed on every floor; used syringes are discarded haphazardly.

People booking these hotels are getting no warning they need to protect themselves from used, dirty needles. It's also unfair to hotel staff.

r152 lmao you dumb queen. I will NEVER “log off.”

DUE DILIGENCE! Big words Mary!!!

You’re so much smarter than me. Please take those smarts and move all the homeless junkies into your beautiful apartment where you don’t pay over half your paycheck for rent. You’re so superior and better with your money than I am. Oh even better - if you live outside NY - let me get the violent sex-offending junkies one way tickets to your town and they can set up shop there - shitting on your streets and jacking off in front of children and screaming at passerby and shooting up and then passing out on the sidewalks. How about that?

Did you miss the endless distinctions everyone has been making between this specific situation and homeless shelters in general? I don’t give a F that there are homeless shelters on the UWS. That’s not the issue for the 1000th f’ing time.

Oh and you also missed the part where you call me a racist and tell me to go watch Fox News.

Gurl please.

This is heartbreaking. I’ll take these homeless families. Move them into the Lucerne.

BdB is a monster.

OP must be from flyover land, she thinks only Liberal Democrats live on the UWS. lol

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

"OP must be from flyover land, she thinks only Liberal Democrats live on the UWS. lol"

Believe me, absolutely no one in " flyover land" cares about the UWS liberals bitching and moaning about your homeless problem.

It's so ridiculous to care more about drug-addicted, violent homeless than the people who actually work and pay all of the taxes to keep this city going. I genuinely hate this mayor as much as I hate deplorables. Flush all of them down the toilet.

No one wants to be around fucking homeless people. I want to help those who want help and to improve their lives. I couldn't give less of a shit about the violent ones. Their lives don't matter. Not a single one of them.

R9 This is an unpopular opinion that I don't share very much, but let's face it... deinstitutionalization was a huge mistake.

I've been reading about homelessness lately and I don't see how there can be a proper "cure" for CHRONIC homelessness. Where many of them are unstable addicts, suffering from brain injuries, mental illness, etc., basically unable to follow the "rules" of society. The vast majority of homeless people aren't people who are "down on their luck" and will get on their feet once they get a job. There's no easy answers.

What about converted shipping containers scattered about the city so every neighborhood takes on its share of the homeless population? I think a lot of these vagrants would endear themselves to the local residents as beloved hobos, like Nachum in Fiddler on the Roof.

[quote]Republicans don’t want any of their tax dollars helping them or anyone disadvantaged at all, even from a distance. If people can’t see the difference between those set of morals I feel sorry for them. It’s totally disingenuous.

Pile of horseshit, R59. "Republicans" donate more to charity (and some studies show Republican men tip better than Democratic women lol) than Democrats.

It's an ideological difference - as usual - between the individual v. the state.

Republicans prefer more oversight and regulation in how money is disbursed/used and because they have little control over fraud and waste (desire for "welfare reform" or entitlements reform). This is why they prefer to donate to charities of their choosing as opposed to having no control over how tax monies are spent, like here in NYC where an OBSCENE amount of money is being obliterated by housing the homeless in hotels.

[quote]and some studies show Republican men tip better than Democratic women lol)

How the fuck would anyone even know this? I can only imagine the "studies"

And the fact that blue states are the ones funding red states is completely lost on you, eh?

[quote]This is why they prefer to donate to charities of their choosing

You mean like bullshit wars rather than universal healthcare? You mean like corporate welfare rather infrastructure? You mean like tax cuts for the wealthy rather than education?

[quote]This is why they prefer to donate to charities of their choosing

Yes, they give to "causes" that will directly benefit them -- churches and schools.

R172 - have at it. I wish they showed the FULL methodology, but here. Conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International.

R175, it also states southerners are the worst tippers. Remind me how most of them vote.

And remind me how most of the below vote:

A Northeasterner with a credit card will likely make the wait staff smile.

omg I'm not going to get into a pissing match of conservative v. liberal.

My main point is that saying Republicans are heartless and don't want to help anyone is completely false. Only the most ardent and psychotic liberal would say as much. It's just an ideological difference - as usual - between individual v. state knowing best. And I doubt any American would, if they kept their tax money, say "man, I'd love to donate to the charity that will house and feed the homeless in HOTELS."

[quote]It's just an ideological difference

You cannot claim this in 2020. You cannot be so nonchalant in the differences with Trump as president, nor how Republican presidents are given a surplus which they immediately go through.

There is no such thing as a fiscal conservative. They don't believe in what they claim to believe in. NYS does not get to decide how their money is spent by the federal govt. The moocher from KY gets to decide how to spend money of which his Republican state contributed nothing.

We don't get to decide that trillions of dollars shouldn't be spent on a war based on lies. We don't get to decide that billionaires don't need tax cuts.

Why can’t they put them in Javits Center? Just shove them all in there?

[quote]Annoying neighbours everywhere are a public nuisance and in many cases a danger. An old neighbour of mine used to sell drugs out of her apartment. Did I lobby to have the whole apartment building emptied because of an association to her?

The incredibly skewed "logic" of these posts is terrifying.

[quote]This is an unpopular opinion that I don't share very much, but let's face it... deinstitutionalization was a huge mistake. I've been reading about homelessness lately and I don't see how there can be a proper "cure" for CHRONIC homelessness. Where many of them are unstable addicts, suffering from brain injuries, mental illness, etc., basically unable to follow the "rules" of society. The vast majority of homeless people aren't people who are "down on their luck" and will get on their feet once they get a job. There's no easy answers.

I agree 100 percent. We have no way of knowing how "unpopular" an opinion that is, but I do agree that very few people are willing to express it with their names attached, for obvious reasons.

Yes, "homeless" is a uselessly broad label. Like "jobless," which includes desperate people just fired for illegal reasons, people who worked for a year and then faked disability, people who worked 65 years and are now 80 and can't get hired, people who reluctantly apply for the bare minimum of jobs to keep the unemployment coming, and people who desperately want to work and will do anything but still can't find a job.

"Homeless" can mean you just got evicted because you lost your job and can't pay rent, it can mean you're fleeing an abusive spouse in desperation, or it can mean you're one of the forever homeless who simply don't like living under a roof or in a fixed place. And those people very much do exist.

Far too many people attribute their own feelings to strangers. "Well, if [italic]I[/italic] were living on the street, I'd jump at any chance to get help, work, and a place to live. That must mean these people have never been helped, or they'd be nice middle-class citizens now!"

I used to shrug and think how lucky people are to be able to believe that. They've never had to deal with sociopaths or lunatics or hard-core druggies. People like that burn through family, friends, acquaintances, and then The System. They DO NOT WANT help. They want to do just what the fuck they want to do, and that's usually self-destructive and often aggressive and dangerous.

Now, living in NYC my whole life, I no longer want to shrug at these naïve Pollyannas. I want to smack their smug faces right back to the rich, insulated suburbs they came from.

R169, I have to agree. And, people forget that much of the deinstitutionalization was brought on because of lawsuits filed the ALCU.

[R184] The ACLU caused all the tents on the LA sidewalks too, by saying homeless encampments are private property and can’t be dispersed.

[quote]Yes, they give to "causes" that will directly benefit them

There is nothing wrong with that.

R186, then one should not claim Republicans are "charitable" if the charity is run like Trump's does.

Agreed that *most* of the homeless who set up shop on the street are beyond help. They are too far gone. It’s very sad but I also don’t want to be anywhere near them. Severe mental illness or drug addiction.

ACLU is annoying AF honestly.

Americans are so obsessed with their individual rights, whether it’s owning an arsenal of weapons or shooting up heroin in the street or insisting on hoarding trash. It’s detrimental to the common good. Other countries may have this too, I’m just speaking as an American. This insanity is both right and left, depending on what you want to do. The right wants to have shootouts and the left wants to poop on the sidewalk.

Living off the govt should be the least desireable outcome in life; however, in NYC that is the norm for several million and there is no shame to it and it is never enough. A paycheck with a budget is anathema to many of these people. Study hard and work harder should be the goal, not have kids and let the govt pay for everything.

I have been a Prosecutor, Criminal Defense Attorney, and worked for Legal Aid. I am a Moderate Democrat. I have about as much political power as the Green Party in Texas. Homelessness is not a lack of empathy problem. But whatever, let the name-calling continue.

Just because I’m liberal doesn’t mean I want people shitting on my street

^You may not want it but you vote for the people who insure its inevitability.

There are many unoccupied, and in most cases, unfurnished apartments/condos in NYC. They were bought to launder money. Appropriate them as criminal assets and house the homeless in them.

It's the gift that keeps on giving....

Things had become precarious even before the coronavirus:

“After the fiscal crisis of 1975, New York and its economy were restructured around tourism, high finance, luxury retail, and real estate. On the glittering surface, things had never looked better. By 2019, New York was richer than it had ever been before, its population at an all-time high and its forests of glass towers rising ever higher...

“Beneath that glittering surface, however, was a lot of emptiness. Even before the coronavirus, almost a third of the apartments from East 49th Street to East 70th, Fifth Avenue to Park, were occupied for only two months a year or less. Similar economic dead zones were scattered throughout the city—what Tim Wu, a law professor at Columbia University, has labeled “high-rent blight,” wealthy neighborhoods where whole blocks of businesses closed their doors because they couldn’t come up with the runaway rents.”

R60

Because Lucerne, Belleclaire , Belnord and several other hotels on UWS and elsewhere in Manhattan were sitting with tons of empty rooms, and thanks to covid-19 travel bans (international and nationwide), that wasn't likely to change.

No one forced these hotels to take the homeless; city sent out feelers and contracts were drawn up, likely paying more than rack rate or at least what these hotels can get currently. Lucerne was previously offering rates low as $170-$189 per night and still wasn't getting many takers.

Many hotels in city have closed and more are expected to do so as toursim is down the toilet, and not expected to pick up anytime soon. Most notably international travel ban will largely remain in place until January 2021. Hotels by that time will have been largely without a customer market since March 2020, nearly one year.

Furthermore none of this is exactly new; city has been putting homeless in budget and even luxury hotels since almost day one after BdeB came into office. That and he appointed that liberal, progressive, socialist Steven Banks as commissioner of Department of Homeless Services. His game plan now is same as in past; to bust well off middle and above class neighborhoods by opening homeless shelters or otherwise placing such persons, and or low income in these areas.

A few years ago city was putting homeless in The Excelsior Hotel on West 81st street just across from Planetarium between Central Park West and Columbus. Same sort of things began happening at once; you saw odd persons panhandling along block or across the street around Planetarium or Museum of Natural History.

R199. The word "THE" is totally free, so there is no need to uses it so sparingly.

Blame me. I brag in my book Shark Tales about how I made a killing luring Chinese and Russian "investors" to buy up New York real estate. They don't live there. No one does.

R195 wants to house the homeless in super luxury condos worth $2 million and up. Who would pay the monthly common charges in the thousands for these junkies and criminal degenerates? Section 8? Why on earth would you reward people with luxury housing and expect middle class NYers living with roommates to pay for it?

R202

If you live in NYC they're coming to your apartment building anyway baby!

Wow, it's over NYC.

R202, rewarding bad behavior is the American way.

[quote] Republicans donate more to charity

R171, how many of these “charities” Republicans donate to are their own foundations or those of their partners in crime which were set up to reduce their tax liability?

House them in Gracie Mansion with that garbage family.

The homeless aren't leaving without a fight.

Who is going to stay in the Lucerne in the future knowing it was filled with homeless people?

[quote] The city recently agreed to move residents to a 32nd st hotel....

Aren't the people on 32nd street going to complain also?

Send them to Buffalo with their vouchers and watch the fun begin. Nobody, not even a dying 3rd tier city wants to be inundated with people who do nothing for society except take and demand more. Never enough.

Pre COVID, I was having coffee with a French coworker downtown (at THINK coffee down by the courts for the NYers). We watched a mentally ill filthy homeless man come into the coffee place and proceed to start f*cking around at the condiments bar. Loudly talking to himself. Dancing. Touching all the straws, throwing napkins around, moving around lids, pouring out honey, then putting it in his mouth, putting his hands everywhere. It was disgusting.

Everyone sort of watched in horror and then looked over at the employees who were just standing there half-watching and ignoring it.

An Italian tourist was sitting next to us and he and my French coworker started talking about how ridiculous Americans are when it comes to placating the homeless because of bullshit liberal guilt. They said in Europe, shop owners would have run him out immediately and call the police if necessary. But Americans are so hesitant to do anything inhumane to the poor homeless, even if it means they are hurting business and making things unhygienic.

We watched people get up and start to leave the coffee place and the homeless guy continued messing with the condiments and flailing and talking to himself.

FINALLY, a pierced up tattoo’d white hipster employee came over to him with a SANDWICH and meekly offered it to him - homeless guy screamed at her to go F herself and stormed out (didn’t take the sandwich).

Employees didn’t really clean up the condiments or sanitize anything and we sat and watched a frau come in with her kid and use the honey that the homeless guy had just had his filthy hands all over.

The whole experience was nauseating and absurd. I’m done acting like the homeless should get to do whatever the F they want and live wherever the F they want and it’s so sad blah blah blah.

Done.

[quote]We used to have state-run residential psychiatric villages in this country, but they're long gone. Every state had them, I know CT had at least three. It's just a fact of life that there are some people in our society who are severely mentally ill and they will never be able to take care of themselves and need others to take care of them. That's what these residential facilities were for, but they mostly went out of business in the 80s, with a few exceptions.

[quote]Reagan put an end to that. Blame that motherfucker for a lot of what's happening now. That disgusting man was about deflection and division.

Reagan left office [bold]31 years ago[/bold]. Since then, we've had two 2-term Democratic presidents, and, for most of that time, Democratic leadership in Albany and NYC.

Exactly when the FUCK can we expect our politicians, and our voters, to start taking responsibility? So, Reagan fucked up -- now we sit with one thumb up our ass and one thumb in our mouth, still sniveling about long-dead Reagan as our cities fall to shit? FUCK THAT.

R210 32nd Street is already the ghetto right near shithole Penn Station so no one will gaf.

Most of them would qualify for disability if someone walked them through the application process, the problem is how do you register a person with no ID and no address, no bank account? Some might not remember what their legal name is.

Blame Reagan and don't forget to blame every Republican. Oh Wait, in NYC it is the Dems who run the shit show here and make all the decisions. Homeless are out of control and destroying so much that is good in ALL neighborhoods. You don't find anything close to this in a Republican city. Sorry but the Dems are responsible for this overgrowth of chaos and we are all paying the price.

Sounds ghastly, r212, just ghastly.

r213 the shit really hit the fan under Reagan and nobody has tried to deal with the fallout ever since.

This is turning into one huge hot mess.....

Move them into the billionaire skyscrapers. Nobody is home in those places.

R216 you ass, there's only like three Republican-run cities in the US's fifty largest cities.

And this isn't a city or state problem, it's a federal problem. Decades ago, thanks the GOP's irresponsible tax cuts, the budgets for subsidized housing were frozen, and all the while the population grew. We're seeing the result of decades of neglect for housing the poor. And again, this isn't a city or state problem, because any city or state that spends the money to create more housing is going to see homeless/poor people from all over the country move to where the housing is. Legally, they can't restrict it to current residents.

The only solution is to raise the corporate taxes again, raise the income tax again, and take a big chunk of that money to provide hundreds of thousands more subsidized housing units across the US.

I have nothing but sympathy for people who end up homeless through no fault of their own, i.e. losing a job and being unable to find another job. And when they have children to support it makes the situation all the more horrible. People like this (see the woman with her two kids in r219's article) need help.

The crazy drug-addled violent assholes who are homeless and refuse help can all go fuck themselves, however. I don't care what happens.

Funny, I never run into a homeless guy who has copies of his resume in his hand.

Making it rain money to keep paying for the homeless encourages irresponsible behavior and the problem only gets bigger and never subsides. Make shelter living something that people don't want to use unless it is a last resort. Do not offer luxury condos or hotels as it makes people flock to NYC for services.

This is becoming a massive shit show; but am at a loss to understand why BdeB caved in.....

Mayor is term limited out next year, so cannot run again for mayor thus there really isn't anything residents of UWS (or anywhere else) can do to him politically, well for now at least. Should he attempt to run for governor or something that would be another matter.

Usually BdeB and his homeless services commissioner stick to their guns about forcing masses of great unwashed into wealthy parts of city. That they have reversed course tells me person or persons have got at BdeB. Perhaps other democrats looking to run for mayor next year and are worried about ruffling too many political feathers on UWS. But even with this current homeless mess cannot see UWS suddenly flipping republican by 2021.

Entire NYS senate and assembly are up for election in November, so maybe pressure is coming from that front as well. But still again cannot see UWS changing from liberal/democrat to GOP in just a few months.

The UWS is full of red diaper babies, frizzy-haired Columbia grads with granny glasses and Bernie bumper stickers on their Volvos. They would vote for a cardboard box if that were the Democratic candidate, all the whiile oohing and aahing and patting themselves on the back about how compassionate and caring they are.

They will never learn. Never, ever.

Of course, only fuzzy Liberals live on the UWS!

"Nobody, not even a dying 3rd tier city wants to be inundated with people who do nothing for society except take and demand more. Never enough."

But, enough about NYC.

The thing with housing these people is that they are going to have to do it forever

They can't end this

R226 frizzy haired Columbia grads!! How DARE you reduce me to a cultural stereotype??!?

R229

Oh but "they" will.

FEMA was putting up large part of money to house these homeless in hotels via funds for covid-19 pandemic. Once that money is gone or ceases it will be on city to pay; and it just does not have that kind of money atm. Neither does Albany for that matter, so yes, sooner or later things will return to status quo.

There is a huge need for supportive mentally ill, elderly, and homeless housing. Then there is also an equally large need for low income (not just affordable) housing as well; neither of which city can provide on its own.

I work for the city's Dept of Homeless Svcs. All I can say is when Bloomberg ran the city it was very different. Steve Banks, hand selected by DeBlasio merged Homeless Svc. and HRA together in order to control one big budget to hide all kinds of swampy messes that the public may never learn about unless there is an outside audit. It wreaks of corruption, waste, nepotism, and incompetence. Too many people are qualifying for the dozens of new services the agency offers, many who should be getting services elsewhere and it makes it very difficult for the truly needy to get help. It is a sad mess these days. The next mayor may have to dismantle everything Mr. Banks has done and start fresh.

R232 as a fellow city employee (not HRA) I am perplexed by the number of absurd things Deblasio does just because Steve Banks wants it done. So many other advisors could be arguing against it but if Banks wants it...

R232 that’s really eye opening and yet not at all surprising. We didn’t know how good we had it.

[quote] Making it rain money to keep paying for the homeless encourages irresponsible behavior and the problem only gets bigger and never subsides.

Making it rain money to keep paying for [bold]CORPORATE WELFARE[/bold]encourages irresponsible behavior and the problem only gets bigger and never subsides.

Sounds like Mr Banks and Mr DeBlasio have a very cozy “working” relationship.

R235 both can be true and both can be wrong.

I’m a Legal aid lawyer and Banks was our boss for years until he went to work for BdB. He was wonderful when he ran Legal Aid - people really liked him - so I’m not sure what happened here. Maybe totally in over his head? It seems like a big jump to go from managing Legal Aid (albeit we are a huge organization) to figuring out homelessness for the city? Sure doesn’t seem like a good fit based on what a disaster everything is....

R238 how do you feel about the Legal Aid threat to sue the city if they dare move any of the homeless?

I live on the UWS. There is a hardcore group of NIMBYs here, but only a few thousand people (in a neighborhood with ~240k residents) were part of the movement to toss out homeless residents. Personally, I didn’t witness anything that made me believe the streets were overrun with vagrants disturbing the peace, shooting up and having sex in public. Instead, I think there was a concerted (and media-amplified) effort to make things seem much worse than they actually are, and “expose the hypocrisy” of a “liberal bastion.”

BdB is a useless POS, and R232, there is nothing that would make me happier than a full audit of the city’s finances.

Move them to the UES and see how long it takes for a solution to be reached.

R239 - I was disgusted. I don’t work in the division that planned to sue but yeah... didn’t support it.

I’ve devoted my entire career to indigent defense. I love my job and I work very hard. I’ll likely stay at Legal Aid until I retire.

That doesn’t mean I want hundreds of substance abusing homeless men moving in next door and shitting all over my sidewalks.

LOL Watch out, Upper West Siders. This plan from anarchists may have failed, but trust me when I tell you that these groups are talking to the homeless in that hotel right now about doing this. Your vacant apartments are about to become occupied and, because NY has strong eviction laws, you're not getting rid of your new neighbors anytime soon. LOLOLOLOL

[quote]Maybe if New Yorkers had been smart enough not to elect this asshole mayor you wouldn’t have this mess.

The problem these days is that so many people are partisan that they refuse to cross party lines. When de Blasio was first elected, there was no Democrat worth voting for. None of them were any good. But liberals refuse to cross over and vote for a Republican.

That girl in R243 is becoming the face of the Dem party.

I am normally a Democrat, but a Democrat circa 1990 to 2016. The new far left liberal Democrats, especially in NYC are destroying the city for the middle and working classes. I will vote Independent if there is someone next time.

UWS has been changing (if slowly) ever since 1980's; and that continues today.

Yes, you still have plenty of hippy-dippy, liberal, socialist, progressive democrats; but the UWS people knew from 1970's or before in fact or fiction such as film like "Goodbye Girl" or "Harry and Tonto" is pretty much dying if not gone.

Few people know that much of UWS from about 57th street north to 96th was declared "blighted" and parts designated urban renewal districts. That still is true for north side of 81st street north to south side of 96th, between Central Park West and Amsterdam IIRC.

It is because of urban renewal UWS got Lincoln Center (replacing much of old Lincoln Square neighborhood), and fact unlike UES you have tons of public housing buildings and projects scattered in what is otherwise rich wealthy heartland of UWS. You don't have a single bit of "low income" housing on UES from Fifth to Third avenues going from 70's to 90's; but OTOH there are plenty on streets in same area on UWS starting with blocks just off Central Park West.

Good number of the old "hippy-dippy" sort decamped for Park Slope and other areas of Brooklyn starting in 1980's. Now that area is too expensive they are going straight to the suburbs like Maplewood, Montclair or other bastions of liberal, equality, etc.....

In their place you are getting money both in new construction, and in older buildings that have been renovated. People who have paid several millions for those townhouses, pre-war co-ops and other properties want what anyone else in that situation does. In short UWS has not been immune to the suburbanization of Manhattan anymore than other areas.

For the record, as noted many times in this thread and elsewhere stories of people fleeing NYC in a panic screaming sky is falling are not new. Even as those folks were packing up and moving out, others were coming in. That is happening today and as such stories of NYC's demise are greatly exaggerated.

Exactly, R248. I'm R155 and I mentioned my neighbor is moving. I swear I am not exaggerating when I say the day after the sign went up and the house was listed last week, there have been countless people coming to see it since and it will undoubtedly be sold by the end of the month.

This city has always had its ups/downs, but the appeal is still there. The shit mayor and his shit wife will be gone at some point and the city will remain.

The fact that Amazon has not fled and is adding jobs, should tell you that it's still able to recover.

[quote]Yes, you still have plenty of hippy-dippy, liberal, socialist, progressive democrats; but the UWS people knew from 1970's or before in fact or fiction such as film like "Goodbye Girl" or "Harry and Tonto" is pretty much dying if not gone.

Haven't been in Zabar's lately have you? Those old socialist Jews will still knock you down if you're standing between them and a gefilte fish.

R250

Never said totally gone; just "pretty much"; it will be another two or more decades until last of those sorts of boomer generation (and or their parents), then we shall see what remains.

What always gets me is many of these (now) middle aged to elderly "liberals" both gay and straight bought or moved into their rent regulated apartments back when UWS was a vastly different place. As such they paid far less than would otherwise for their co-op or townhouse, and or thanks to rent regulation are living in below market rate apartments. Yet many are the ones screaming loudest about "these" people in their UWS.

They also don't like the new bike lanes, in particular one stretching from basically just almost start of CPW going north to Central Park North. They need their vehicles to get out of city to go grocery shopping in NJ, LI or Westchester, and or to their second homes in same or upstate NY.

Just as an aside; for those who saw film "Harry and Tonto" they will recall Harry is being forced to move from his UWS apartment building because it was condemned (as part of urban renewal IIRC), and thus he had to move out.

OTOH plot device of play/film The Goodbye Girl (subleasing of a huge UWS pre-war apartment) was common well into 1970's and maybe 1980's soon LL's began cracking down. Days of passing such apartments around to family and or friends easily for "key money" soon vanished as LL's realized they could get big bucks for those family sized apartments.

Actors and others in performing arts were famous for passing apartments around, which is likely how Neil Simon came to know about such things and used it as plot device. If you were a dancer or actor and got a gig in LA or Paris, but didn't want to totally give up your Manhattan apartment, you arranged a sublet. Sometimes to keep LL from finding out the person subletting sent you money, and you in turn mailed rent checks to LL. Person subletting sending rent directly to LL was dangerous. For one thing it tipped them off someone else was living in apartment. Two by NY laws/court rulings if they accepted those checks for a certain period rights to evict person subletting (legally or not) diminished. Courts would say "person lived there openly and sent you rent checks that were cashed... give them a new lease...".

LL's would launch primary residence or other holdover actions in housing court proceedings to get lease terminated (in case of tenant of record not living there), and or saying current tenant was not there legally and thus had to go.

Went to school and college with several friends either where one or both grandparents had huge UWS pre-war apartments but mostly lived in Florida, and thus family kept the place for their "use". Or, grandparents long died, maybe apartment belonged to mother or father before marriage, but they moved out and still kept unit "in family". In any event these kids had huge apartments all to themselves paying very little rent. Mia Farrow was turfed out of her Central Park West rent regulated apartment that once belonged to her mother.

R251 I fucking hate the damn bike lanes. Everyone here bitches about Bloomberg but as far as I’m concerned that’s the worst thing he did. He bikes, so therefore bicyclists were given the fucking royal treatment. And can go thru lights, and against traffic — who cares right? They’re the new kings and queens of New York.

Ted talk/rant over sorry.

[quote]Yes, you still have plenty of hippy-dippy, liberal, socialist, progressive democrats; but the UWS people knew from 1970's or before in fact or fiction such as film like "Goodbye Girl" or "Harry and Tonto" is pretty much dying if not gone.

Not on Datalonge! Many posters here think it's still like that.

R253 more ppl on bikes > more bike lanes, fairly simple. Frees up the car traffic since it encourages people to cycle for short distance journeys - what’s the problem? Also organizes the cyclists to a certain part of the road. Far more efficient use of public space than what’s required by a private car - bikes use so much less space when not in use, and you get cleaner air. Can you imagine what could be done with all the space in our cities reserved for car parking. You could build tonnes of hotels for the homeless.

Two problems:

One: Cyclists are as big a cunts as motorcyclists in that they think traffic laws do not apply to them. I almost hit a fucking asshole cyclist who went flying through a red light as I was making a left (and it didn't just turn red, it was already red for him) and he had the nerve to act as though it was my fault. I would've done the city a favor by doing away with his useless ass

Two: Many of the added bike lanes are in stupid locations where they're barely used and because they've taken away much needed car lanes, traffic is worse.

R256 car traffic might be worse, but the bike traffic is free flowing. It’s to encourage people to cycle - if you see how great the facilities are for cycling then you’re more likely to cycle. The idea is that they will become more used. Infrastructure should never be built to satisfy the current requirement it should be built with an eye to future use and to encourage or discourage certain forms of transportation. The era of the private car in city centers is gone. Also NY is so suited to cycling, it’s mostly flat.

As to your first comment i think it’s so funny when people act like a cyclist breaking a red light is as bad as a car doing the same thing. Which will do more damage if it hits something? Bikes don’t travel as fast or have as much mass and are built in a way that allows for a less rigid control of their traffic patterns. Their turning circle is nothing so if they get in the wrong place it’s not a huge deal to correct. Like who cares if a bike goes down a one way street the wrong way - so dramatic.

R257, I had to quickly step on the break to prevent an accident which that asshole could've caused and if I hit the pos, then it's a situation where I may have hurt a moron who then proceeds to try and act like it's my fault that he got hurt.

You're not going to find a lot of people defending the idiocy of cyclists except for other cyclists. The fucking laws apply to them, too. Just because they aren't the size of a vehicle, doesn't make their recklessness less dangerous.

R258 actually it does mean exactly that. Their smaller size makes their recklessness much less dangerous, go look up some stats. Do a comparison of pedestrian deaths from motor vehicles versus bike collisions.

Has anyone been to penn station lately? I heard the homeless have taken over that area - is that accurate?

A friend told me yesterday that she was at 28th street going to get on the subway and a homeless guy was kicking people as they tried to enter the station (1 line). She avoided the kicking but then he came from behind and grabbed her. This was at 8pm last Sunday. She got him off of her but was really shaken up. Said the guy in the booth watched the whole thing and didn't/couldn’t do anything to stop it.

Sigh.

Except r255 cyclists are about 100x times as likely to break the law as drivers. And not just running red lights btw, which they do all the time because they think the law doesn’t apply to them, but flat out doing against traffic. You see cars doing that really? It’s fucking dangerous and they’re reckless. Plus with one lane for cars going cross town they’ve made it impossible for traffic — and parking.

It’s ridiculous .

R259, your stupidity is unparalleled.

Shame on you people for not "oh dearing" me last night.

BRAKE*

Cyclists tend to be assholes.

Oh come on - since 2011 seven pedestrians were killed by cyclists in NYC, in the same period approx 1100 were killed by cars. But pls continue to tell me how super dangerous the cyclists are. This is a guns v knives debate. And ofc this is total daily mail / NY Post failure to see the wood from the trees.

These vulgarians should be rounded up and kept in a holding pen and evauluated and medicated. The law abiding majority needs to hold the far left Dems in NYC accountable once and for all. DeBlasio and his non response to the problem is the problem. Maya Wiley should not be considered as a viable candidate as she is cut from the same far left cloth.

Things could get worse, much worse not just on UWS but all over city. Soon you could have these people not just housed in hotels in area, but in same apartment building as yourself.

This is another far left liberal Dem working everyday to destroy the city for law abiding residents. There will come a day when everyone except the criminals and social service takers will be here and nobody else. No wonder so many people are dunzo with NYC.

I don't understand this bullshit policy of bending over backwards for unproductive criminals so that you drive out the very people who provide the taxes to run the city. Whose vote are you trying to get with this bullshit? The overwhelming majority would vote to see Di blasio hang at this point.

Councilman Stephen Levin is one of those elected to NYC government who has a bug up his ass about "wealthy" persons.

Amazing they get to move into apartments where we are paying full rent?

So what should everyone else do then? Just stop paying rent and let the city pay like they do for the homeless?

Unreal.

Brad Lander is another one...

"“This bill is common sense. I am proud to introduce this bill to make criminal background checks illegal in housing, and prohibit housing providers from advertising that they will not accept people with conviction histories. More than ever we need accessible and affordable housing for people who have experienced incarceration — it’s time we removed these barriers that don’t actually provide safety for our communities. Safe and stable housing keeps our communities safe — not restrictive background checks,” said Levin.

“People who have served time and are trying to start over need access to the things that make a stable, good life possible: safe, affordable housing and job opportunities. Ending discrimination against formerly incarcerated people in housing will prevent recidivism and enable people to rebuild their lives,” said Lander. "

/end quote

I don't want violent parolees in my building.

R273 then live in a house.

Right-wing assholes trying to smear liberals when they're the ones who demonize the poor.

BTW, not everyone who lives in New York is a liberal. Remember when New Yorkers elected that far right loon, Rudy Giuliani?

R274, can we send them to your house?

Yeah, that’s what I thought.

R274. Why should I move asshole? Let the violent parolees live in a house. Fuck that shit. Why should someone who pays taxes and doesn't break the law have to be at risk so that criminals can move in without a criminal background check. I don't want them around me. Let the criminals live with family members who probably don't want them either.

I doubt they presently do criminal background checks anyway. I’ve never had one, but they do require evidence of employment, proof of your last few addresses and a big old deposit, so that would suffice to prove your upright citizenship. The criminal background stuff sounds like grandstanding.

There’s one troll in this thread. Ignore him and all the insanity disappears.

In the former Soviet Union, people were often forced to share apartments with strangers, for the good of society. I assume this is coming to NYC next.

R277 lol - you live in a free society. Thus you don’t get to choose your neighbours. If you’re gonna piss and moan over what type of neighbours you have don’t live in an apartment building. Duh. Logically - you should go live in a house. And if you don’t want criminals near you I suggest you go live in isolation.

R276 is your brain bleeding?

Oh and R279 the trolls in this thread are in the majority; losers that have failed in life and are trying to make themselves feel better by lashing out at the less fortunate and making dumb intellectually bereft remarks about the types of targets the daily mail tells them to (cyclists, homeless, “far left liberals” etc etc.) it’s just a total cringefest.

R272 I love the descriptor 'people who have experienced incarceration', like it is some random experience that just happens to one.

That said, if one has been convicted of a crime, sentenced, served that sentence and/or paid restitution, and is off parole, then one should have zero impediments going forward in terms of application for housing.

Hey R282 go infect some other thread with your bulls*it.

[quote]lol - you live in a free society. Thus you don’t get to choose your neighbours. If you’re gonna piss and moan over what type of neighbours you have don’t live in an apartment building

People with a history of mental instability and violence should just be allowed to move in? You're an utter moron.

[quote]Oh come on - since 2011 seven pedestrians were killed by cyclists in NYC, in the same period approx 1100 were killed by cars. But pls continue to tell me how super dangerous the cyclists are. This is a guns v knives debate. And ofc this is total daily mail / NY Post failure to see the wood from the trees.

Unless you are a complete idiot, it MUST have occurred to you that the main reason more pedestrians are KILLED by cars than by bicycles is that cars are a WHOLE LOT BIGGER than bicycles. But that doesn't mean huge amounts of pedestrians haven't been struck by cyclists, and in many cases injured severely. Your statistic is useless, so please bow out of this discussion unless you're going to provide a useful statistic as to how many pedestrians have been struck by bicycles as compared to cars over the past however many years.

I mean, really, how stupid can you be to cite a statistic like that without realizing what it means? This is an honest question.

Ummmm R286 I was replying to the dickhead at 258 who said the following:

“ Just because they aren't the size of a vehicle, doesn't make their recklessness less dangerous.”

I replied (259):

“ actually it does mean exactly that. Their smaller size makes their recklessness much less dangerous”

Did you read any of the comments? You’re agreeing with me, by disagreeing with me. Jesus Christ you people. Wtf.

[quotes] Cyclists are as big a cunts as motorcyclists in that they think traffic laws do not apply to them.

The NYPD aren’t bothered by cyclists who flout traffic laws so the cyclists do as they please. If cycling scofflaws were to start getting summoned for moving violations the way motorists are, they’d learn right quick to follow the rules of the road. Better enforcement will bring about better compliance.

R288 mmhmm mmhmm

R278

You'd lose that bet..

Many landlords do criminal background searches as part of overall tenant screening, and this applies to NYC just as nearly everywhere else in USA.

In NYC where tenants have more or equal rights than people who own the buildings, and thus once in can be *very* difficult to remove, only a foolish LL wouldn't want full picture.

Nearly all major tenant screening services offer criminal background as part of search requests.

My apt. building does a complete background check which includes credit/criminal. They give you a copy of it when you sign a lease here. The building does not allow criminals or financial deadbeats into the building because it is a problem for other tenants and ultimatley the landlord. These criminals should make sure they can live either in a boxcar or a house but do not expect to be wall to wall with law abiding citizens in decent buildings in NYC. Too much risk to accomodate the criminals. I do not want convicted criminals in my building with their criminal friends coming in and out to visit. Leave that for the projects which I pay for with tax dollars. Sorry, not sorry.

Also R286 as a follow up, in 2017 there were 10,500 incidents where pedestrians were injured by cars, resulting in 106 deaths, 4400 crashes involving cars and bicycles resulting in 24 deaths (all cyclists that died not car passengers), and 315 incidents between pedestrians and cyclists with a single solitary death of one pedestrian. Are these stats more meaningful to you?

This shows a far higher fatality rate in incidents involving motor vehicles also.

CyCLIstS NeED To BE hELd ACcOuNTABle!!1!!

R287, the specific quote I was responding to was the following:

[quote]Since 2011 seven pedestrians were killed by cyclists in NYC, in the same period approx 1100 were killed by cars. But pls continue to tell me how super dangerous the cyclists are.

I still say this is a virtually useless statistic, regardless of whatever else you wrote above. Again, just because a cyclist hitting a pedestrian is less likely to KILL that pedestrian than a car hitting them doesn't mean it's not still very dangerous and likely to cause severe industry. And the lower chance of death is, unfortunately, balanced by the fact that far more pedestrians are hit by cyclists than by cars. Understand?

[quote]In 2017 there were 10,500 incidents where pedestrians were injured by cars, resulting in 106 deaths, 4400 crashes involving cars and bicycles resulting in 24 deaths (all cyclists that died not car passengers), and 315 incidents between pedestrians and cyclists with a single solitary death of one pedestrian.

Sorry, but I simply don't believe there are more pedestrians hit by cars than by cyclists, CERTAINLY not that many more. I'm guessing maybe those statistics are terribly skewed because a great many incidents of pedestrians being hit by cyclists are not reported.

R294 / R295 lol so you discount all of these statistics listed because you feel like they’re wrong and you’re saying that I’m the one that’s misunderstanding the situation?

These stats come from a government agency (check the link) but it seems like you feel like you know better somehow....anecdotally...or you have a gut instinct or something, it simply must be such and such a way. Anyway go off on your disbelief but facts are facts lol.

“I’m guessing maybe those statistics are terribly skewed” 😂 Get a grip on this vague bullshit.

[quote]These stats come from a government agency (check the link) but it seems like you feel like you know better somehow....anecdotally...or you have a gut instinct or something, it simply must be such and such a way. Anyway go off on your disbelief but facts are facts lol.

Not "anecdotally." I have personally with my own eyes seen several pedestrians hit by cyclists over the years, plus I have seen many, many more pedestrians come VERY CLOSE to being hit by cyclists, plus I have heard many stories from friends who have witnessed people being hit or almost hit by cyclists, whereas I have never seen any pedestrian hit by a car in all my years of living in New York City.

I agree that facts are facts, but as I said, maybe the number of pedestrians hit by cyclists is REPORTEDLY so low because so few of those incidents are actually reported. It makes sense that cyclists hitting pedestrians would be reported far less often than cars hitting pedestrians, regardless of the degree of injury. That's why I'm sticking to my opinion, even though it's true, there's no way I can prove it. And it really is fine with me if you want to keep believing what you believe.

For God's sake! You guys please stop arguing about cyclists hitting pedestrians!

R297 mmmmm that’s exactly what anecdotally means. A collection of personal observations rather than real actual statistics. Wow you should go back to school.

Bicyclists are considered “left/progressive” now?? Does EVERYTHINg have to be political? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

In any event, I’m with r297; sane drivers do not regularly run through lights and they certainly don’t drive against traffic. And yet bicyclists do this Constantly. It’s incredibly dangerous. I have a close call with one probably close to every day. Since I obey walk and don’t walk signs, cars are way, wayyyy less of a problem.

Just leave NYC. What possible reason is there to stay?

And I do not blame them in the slightest

I do hope that in future they will be more understanding when the working poor and middle class complain when addicts and such are allowed to roam around their neighbourhoods causing trouble

I don't understand the need to bend over backwards for the homeless -many of whom are violent or constantly begging- who destroy the livability of a city. How is it considered compassion to sacrifice those who keep the city viable in favor of those who take it down?

NYC is the most expensive city in the USA (or second to San Fran). Why create housing for the homeless in such a market when the voucher system keeps prices artifically high for all renters who are barely holding on. Create spaces where affordable housing is affordable.

Nobody’s bending over backwards for the homeless it’s just a roof over their head for a temporary amount of time. R304 the reason is that they are citizens of a federal country. A state can’t just pack people off to another state they have a duty of care to all of their residents - regardless of their having a current address or not. If your only concept of value in a person is their monetary contribution to society then why not extend that logic and see where it gets you with neurologically disabled / physically disabled, elderly or those that are underemployed.

Read this part slowly - if you wanna complain about high rents, the homeless aren’t the ones to blame, it’s the landlords and politicians that are responsible. This is such dull & unimaginative subterfuge.

This woman on NY1 has it right about these Upper West Side assholes. Good riddance to these fuckers if they move.

R306 they don’t care if you judge them for leaving. But those of us left behind in this city will suffer without their money.

Agree with R307. Loathe them but their money is necessary.

R307

True, so very true.

All sorts of persons in service or provide services already are hurting financially. Then there are those in trades and the professions....

Dry cleaners and laundries are closing. Cleaners, child minders, and other domestic servants are scrambling to find replacement work as many of their former employers have moved away. Beauty salon owners or beauticians are saying after pent up demand was spent at reopening it has been a slow slog for many.

That NY1 caller likely is some entitled person living in a rent stabilized apartment and thus cannot be touched, and or otherwise is insulated from full effects of various market forces.

People like that run their mouths about "good riddance" to the wealthy until they are called into their employer's office, sat down and told due to various "economic forces" company/enterprise is suffering losses and thus needs to cut back on staff. That and or they are going out of business all together.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Something is certainly up, what exactly at the moment only BdeB and that some kind of piece of homeless commissioner know for sure.

Civilized people do not deserve to live amongst this human garbage.

What human garbage are you talking about, BIll DeBlasio and his Homeless Svc Commissioner? LOL.

No, the human garbage that infest the streets. Nobody should have to live around these lunatics.

R310 living in rent stabilization makes someone entitled? Using your statutory legal rights now makes someone entitled?

[quote]A state can’t just pack people off to another state they have a duty of care to all of their residents

Oh, yes we can Pollyanna. Just watch us as we buy them all one way bus tickets to bleeding heart, dumbass liberal cities out west. LOL. Those fools will happily bankrupt themselves and alienate their own tax base to feed, clothe and house any low life miscreant that washes up on their shit and needle covered streets.

Does anyone know how much money NYC is spending annually on the homeless? I had heard SF is at least a billion?

Does anyone know how much SF’s richest 118 richest residents increased their personal wealth by in the first three months of the pandemic? I had heard (groan) NYC’s is at least $77 billion?

^Work had and maybe you can be one of them.

NYC spends close to 2 billion annually on the homeless. It was 800 million a year when Bloomberg left in 7 years ago. This clown's ass mayor more than doubled the money spent for far less positive results.

Turn them into Soylent Green and feed it to public school children.

[Quote] Something is certainly up

Yeah, the Legal Aid Society threatened to sue over the plan to move the homeless out of the hotels, so the city backed down. It's funny because on one of these threads somewhere, there was a guy whining about all of the homeless on the Upper White Side while working for this very organization LOL. Dude should just quit. He's working in the wrong profession.

This played a part too.

Actually as of fiscal year 2019 NYC has a homeless service budget of 3.2 billion (USD)

However you have to dig deep into budget and understand the process along with where to look, in particular funding sources.

NYC receives federal funds for homeless, in fact FEMA is paying for all this recent putting up of such persons in local hotels during covid-19 pandemic. This funding will end soon IIRC.

It's a racket.... Homeless services et al have many fingers in that pie; all getting their tastes.

What is clear is that despite huge sums spent for a vast and bewildering array of services (many of which no other local or even state government provides), it's never enough for some. Christine Quinn, that Banks man and others will holding same line "if we could just have a little more it would end homelessness in New York City....". So they are given that "bit more", and numbers go up, not down....

Problem comes down to basic economics; NYC is a very high cost of living urban area, and much of NYS isn't that far behind. Yet NYC government and others keep telling the deluded poor souls ranging from illegal immigrants to the chronically poor/low income that it will some how have their back. Where the money will come from for all this largess is another matter.

Of course a lot of money spent on homeless actually goes to pay salaries for those working for homeless services or in grants to homeless service organizations who will then spend some of the money to pay their people. People make a living off the homeless and are not likely to be invested in completely resolving the problem but applying band aids in order to help to an extent, but to also ensure they are making a living to keep a roof over their heads and not end up on the same side as their clientele.

My friend works for a non profit connected all the up the Mayor's butt crack for funding. He makes $165k a year and is not the top dog. It is pretty amazing. He gets a month vacation and all Fed holidays off. He never works a weekend for any reason. He now works from home and tells me he averages 3 or 4 hours a day and the pay check hasn't changed. His non profit is one of dozens connected to NYC Homeless Svcs.

3 billion?? That’s a shitload of money being wasted and going God knows where, wow.

Legal Aid gets so much of its operating and capital budget from NYC taxpayers. Absolute bullshit that they threaten to sue the city for something that is completely legal. They just know BdB is intensely afraid of bad press- it’s not rational because ALL the man gets is bad press so at this point you would think he’d say “fuck it” and actually take a stand. But he always caves.

What about a big ship like that hospital ship? Tell the homeless they can live there for free and do drugs safely onboard and shit on the poop deck like they do on the sidewalks. I think they’d really like it.

To provide some context - 90% of the legal aid society in NY is criminal defense (public defenders) and the lawyers representing children in foster care. The civil law reform unit that is threatening to sue over the homeless is separate from all of that. It’s a small part of a huge organization.

And our budget gets slashed every year. Look at where your taxes go in the link below. Don’t start with that shit about your tax dollars. And the civil law reform unit is largely funded by grants.

And r323. Telling me to quit my job... right. F**k off.

R331 U.S.N.S Comfort isn't part of NYC healthcare system, but was sent to city by request of governor Cuomo and mayor BdeB. The thing was a huge waste of taxpayer money and military's time/effort. The ship never had more than two dozen patients, and mostly thus sat docked unused.

For the record this homeless, vagrant or whatever you want to call it issue isn't limited to UWS; but rather whole of west side of Manhattan from Chelsea through Hell's Kitchen on up to Upper West Side.

Normal resident population of homeless, drug addicts, vagrants, etc.. was bad enough, but now city has been importing more, putting them in local hotels.

From 23rd to about 34th from Sixth to Seventh, city has homeless in hotels. Ditto further up 8th, 9th and 10th avenues.

R334, have you ever been introduced to the word "the"?

Th NY Times is a joke. LOL. Are they REALLY trying to call NY restaurants' attempt at hanging on to life support by a tiny thread "an outdoor dining renaissance"? Hahahah, OMG. When the temps drop, all of them will breathe their last gasp.

R322 [quote]Turn them into Soylent Green and feed it to public school children

Ewww thats digusting, if I had kids I wouldnt want them eating that crap

R336

Oh I don't know.......

^^Oh, yeah a 10% surcharge will sure make up for businesses that are down 60% in good weather.....and will be down even more once it gets cold.

I wouldn't want the pedestrian side ways crowded with homeless people either. What good will it do if you let them sleep rough? Put them in some program so that they can get off the streets. Several companies have designed simple sleeping units for these people outside of town. If they are so far down that they can't be helped, put them on meds so they won't become a problem.

This has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. It has to do with what's the best solution for the homeless and the city.

The problem with homelessness doesn't go away if you tolerate it.

The vast majority of the chronically homeless do not believe in rules or responsibility. The attractive sleeping pods above would become a smelly street ghetto within a few weeks. This population should not even be in a large city with so much distraction and stimulation. There has to be a plan to move them somewhere else in the state where the cost of living is much less and the ability to move around more restrictive.

"Civilized people do not deserve to live amongst this human garbage."

Exhibit #1.

What if they had some dedicated subway trains that were all for the homeless? Kind of like a moving homeless encampment. They could do their thing and not be bothered and then no one particular neighborhood would be forced to deal with living near them. I’m trying to think outside the cardboard box.

Well if they are unwilling to get their life back on track, then they shouldn't be allowed to sleep rough in the streets. Get them on meds and put them away in an institution where they at least have some security, a warm bed, a meal and medical care. They are a danger to themselves and others if they are that far down.

I do believe as a human being you have a responsibility to be a productive element in society. On subjects like this I tend to think the tough love approach is best. I'm a lifelong liberal BTW.

[quote] The vast majority of the chronically homeless do not believe in rules or responsibility.

Then they shouldn't be allowed to crowd the pedestrian walkways. Societies don't function without rules and humans showing responsibility. This applies to the homeless as well and I don't believe supporting them in their irresponsible ways is good for them either.

[quote]Get them on meds and put them away in an institution where they at least have some security, a warm bed, a meal and medical care. They are a danger to themselves and others if they are that far down.

That would be ideal, but state-run institutions closed decades ago.

R339

Bill passed city council and is going to mayor who is in support, so that ship has sailed. We shall see what if anything this new surcharge accomplishes after it is rolled out. Oh and there is a push to make this surcharge in some form permanent.

R332 Legal Aid’s criminal defense is no better- the endless lobbying for bail reform and Raise the Age are a big part of the increase in violence in the city now. I’m a lawyer too and I understand the purpose Legal Aid serves but there have been some unbelievably detrimental changes made that they had a hand in.

And our city budget is massive and horribly managed by Deblasio. But that doesn’t change the fact that your capital and operating dollars are paid for by taxpayers.

NYC needs a total and complete political enema next time around. DeBlasio apologist Maya Wiley should not be the next mayor. We need someone who has backbone and doesn't need the job but will do it as a true public servant. DeBlasio is a craven politician and those around him are no better.

R350 Ray McGuire

Here's the man for NYC. He will drain the swamp! He has the charisma needed, experience running governments, and the pedigree to handle the task.

The future first lady of NYC.

NYC is in such desperate shape, Donny Jr. or Andrew Giuliani would do a better job than the present company of dyed in blue Democrats. This is the saddest statement I have made about the once great NYC, but some sort of seismic swing back to law and order and fiscal responsibility is desperately needed. If the big money residents refuse to come back the city is screwed to the wall for decades.

R353 lol take an extra blood pressure stabilizer today.

not a bad idea at all

[quote]NYC is in such desperate shape, Donny Jr. or Andrew Giuliani would do a better job

Lay off the crackpipe. The city would be better off with NO mayor than either of these two shits

All of you know that you will blindly vote for the candidate with the " D" after the name.....No matter who it is.

[quote]When the lowlifes demonstrate they can't play nice with others, they need to be placed somewhere away from their potential victims or simply be encouraged to leave town.

Cops already do that, trumpanzee. "Greyhound therapy", it's called.

Though I'd suspect you're leaning more towards more of a "final solution" masturbatory fantasy.

R357, if it's that woman who is friends with the Di Blasios, then no, I won't.

One way bus tickets are an economical solution.

Throwing them in the Hudson is an economical solution.

R353 summed it up nicely.

R362, no, he actually didn't Only a moron would say Andrew Guiliani or Uday would be better. It's a very stupid thing to say even as bad as Di Blasio is.

Many Democrats can never admit defeat. Even when our party is at its worst it's always "well, it's better than Dump or Rethug" Cities run by Democrats have become unlivable shitholes.

Unlivable shitholes? You're clearly not in NYC, so STFU, idiot. There are problems, but nothing on the scale as idiots like you would have anyone believe. You're not a Democrat. And we can absolutely blame DUMP along with Di Blasio for this because that shithole in fat orange REPUBLICAN form knew about a deadly virus when WE didn't and that's much of the reason this city is suffering. We don't have like a fucking "Mad Max" situation.

R365 is a troll who can't handle the truth.

R366, I'm not a troll. I'm a lifelong NYer. Where are you and if you're in NY, leave. I could sell my house today (no exaggeration) and leave NY if I wanted to - and buy three god awful McMansion in some idiot town where they mock you for wearing a mask. I'm the one who mentioned my neighbor was selling their house. Was on the market for only two weeks - already sold and there was a bidding war.

I've also said that I loathe Di B and his wife as much I do Trump and I'm also a Bloomberg person because he was never really a Republican. He only ran as one because the Dem field was clogged. The NYPD are purposely NOT doing their job yet still getting paid along with OT and pension. Both R and D are fucked up.

It is not a shithole and it's not Mad Max, but I absolutely want the homeless shipped the fuck out if they're violent. I don't get idiots who think NYC is a war zone. Morons.

This guy sums it up for us:

I am with the guy above me here. NYC is a shit hole with the homeless getting more rights than the taxpayers who support this crap. Enough. Enough. Enough already.

R365, if you're going to San Francisco, be sure to wear a cactus up your ass.

Such a mobilization of Marys!

Living in NYC is a choice. The election of the mayor was your choice. No sympathy.

New Yorkers made a big mistake electing DeBlasio and his grifter wife for a second term. Let's hope the electorate isn't dumb enough to elect Maya Wiley.

Mayor Wiley - book it.

?Question: Did new Yorkers have any idea that this mayor would be so disastrous? Did you not care about his shortcomings, since he had a " D" after his name? Would you be willing to vote for a Republican candidate, if he/she/they were not a right-wing Trumpster ? Is the city too large to be manageable by anyone?

I voted for DeBlasio in the primary in 2013. But between the primary and the general I read more about DeBlasio and realized he may not be very good. His GOP opponent Joe Llohta was a nothing who was going nowhere so I voted third party for some tech entrepreneur whose name I don't remember. In hindsight I should have voted for Bill Thompson in the primary, but I liked how DeBlasio articulated the faults of the Bloomberg years. Bloomberg should have never gone for that third term, enough was enough with his brand of politics and polices, and Christine Quinn fully deserved to be punished for enabling Bloomberg's third term. DeBlasio talked a good game in the primary but there was no there there. I will give him credit for establishing the pre-K program. It was a good program and helped a lot of working mothers and eased financial burdens of having to pay for day care.

In 2017 I voted for whatever Republican ran against DeBlasio. She was City Council woman from Staten Island as I recall. She really had no chance.

One thing to keep in mind was that voter turn out for the Mayor elections in 2013 and 2017 were both low. Voters weren't impressed with any of the choices, which also helped DeBlasio get in And other than 2001 Bloomberg also won election in low turn out elections as many voters didn't care for him, but his opponents, Ferrer and Thompson, didn't excite many either.

I hope Andrew Yang gives it a run in 2021. He has something interesting to offer and he's not a hack like any of the other party machine possibilities.

R375 gave an accurate account. No one even knew who his opponent was in 2017.

R375 The tech entrepreneur running against de Blasio was Michael Tolkin. I like him and I voted for him. I would be very happy if Andrew Yang and Michael Tolkin held any of these offices: NYC Mayor, NY Governor, or US Senator from NY.

de Blasio lied to us when he said that he would be like Mayor La Guardia. I voted for him the first time but not the second time. I didn't vote for the Republican woman, though.

Christine Quinn sold out to developers plus she's a screamer. No thanks. Maya Wiley? Hell NO! Scott Stringer is an ok guy but he's a run-of-the-mill corporate Dem. I can't see him bringing forth any Big Ideas or solving the huge problem of homelessness and no affordable or low-income housing.

CQ is one of those deplorable lesbians. She knows how to push her snout into a lobbyist bag of money and not remove her head until she is full of dough.

Madness continues; city has become total shit hole.

A top Christine Quinn staffer magically qualified for an affordable apartment in a new luxury west side Manhattan apartment building.

Another dirty corrupt dyke living large on my tax dollars, this is why people don't trust Democrats.

Shameful.

Danielle DeCerbo made $ $124,091.97 in 2017 working for NYC planning commission.

Tell me how this bitch qualifies for affordable/low income housing?

In 2015 she was earning "just" $96k per.