all 178 comments

[–]SynGaren 158 points159 points  (67 children)

"For the homeless" Sure.....

[–]only_response_needed 14 points15 points  (2 children)

Free tickets to Hawaii, line starts here.

[–]throttlejohnson 9 points10 points  (1 child)

free tickets to shithole countries here.

[–]Human_Robot 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Does jetBlue go direct to Mar a Lago?

[–]standsongiants 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I used to work for one and it's a great place for a job with an otherwise useless degree and if somehow you're in the the upper echelon you can look forward to a fat six figures. btw I was a janitor.

[–]fatlammers 15 points16 points  (0 children)

...that the homeless will never ever ever ever ever see

[–]DingDongInDaPingPong 69 points70 points  (59 children)

New Yorker, here.

We're never going to solve the homeless crisis because we're never going to have enough space to provide the necessary long term housing for rehabilitation.

New Yorkers are currently dealing with a housing crisis. The cost of living in the city is ridiculous and part of that is we don't have enough space. New Yorkers have to wrestle with the city every single time a new building is built so we can have a number of those apartments as affordable housing.

Homeless people have no options. Any new housing we create is going to need to be used for the New Yorkers simply trying to live and survive. The homeless don't have a space where they can just live for free and start getting their lives back together.

Contrast this with Utah which gave their homeless free homes (mini housing) and used this as a point of rehabilitation.

The reason why Utah succeeded is they have the space to do it. Unless we start shipping our homeless upstate (which people would protest over) it's not possible.

[–]ProMikeZagurski 20 points21 points  (18 children)

You can add San Francisco and LA to that list. This problem is just going to get worse and worse.

[–]Inferno221 7 points8 points  (9 children)

But aren't apartments in San Francisco super expensive because the way they're built is to not disrupt the scene of view, so that makes high property value?

[–]Mdizzle29 11 points12 points  (4 children)

No, it's more all the tech money here that have driven things so crazy.

[–]spin_scope 6 points7 points  (2 children)

It’s not just the tech money, it’s basically every city in the Bay Area preventing new low-cost housing from being built because the owners don’t want their property to potentially lose the value scaricity has given it. Also areas like Novato that refuse to allow BART to be extended because they don’t want the poor people who use transit having access to them keep prices high in areas that do have transit access

[–]OMGthehorrorLOL 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Cannot upvote enough. This particular thing is a BIG STORY that is SO often not discussed. The entirety of Marin is not serviced by BART—a huge enclave of 1%ers. And then we have the Peninsula. Here's the list of some of the NIMBY cities that voted against BART: Hillsborough, San Mateo, Belmont, Redwood City, Atherton, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Santa Clara, Woodside, Portola Valley. I was there; I watched it happen; my parents were furious at the NIMBY-ism of voting against BART and for Proposition 13.

People think that the Bay Area IS the tech industry, the Silicon Valley IS the Bay Area. The tech boom and the crap that Silicon Valley hedge funds and tech companies have brought to the Bay Area is an OVERLAY on top of the geographical area. A LOT of problems pre-existed what the tech industry has wrought upon the area.

As just one example of how completely fucked up the whole thing is, consider this: Menlo Park and Palo Alto, two PRIME areas full of the most profitable tech companies (think Facebook) and hedge companies imaginable, are almost COMPLETELY FLAT, and hence RIPE for installing bike lanes everywhere; and the climate is PERFECT for the same thing: an area commuting to work on bicycles, like in Amsterdam and Copenhagen. Then consider that Apple is headquartered in nearby Santa Clara and Cupertino, ALSO almost completely flat; and the fact that Apple has BILLIONS of dollars. Building bikeways (not just "lanes" marked by white stripes) costs magnitudes less than building highways. It would cost VERY little to build an overlay of bikeways all over Menlo Park, Palo Alto, and Mountain View, thus allowing hundreds if not thousands of people to commute via bicycle. There is even plenty of space for this! (unlike SF). But do you see it happening? NO.

Instead, you see Portland, OR (a pretty hip, well-run developing city) building that pedestrian/bicycle bridge over to SE. Instead, you see tiny Poughkeepsie, NY building one of the most magnificent bike trails imaginable. Those cities have ZIP funds compared with the mid-Peninsula cities.

Bay Area prices—real estate and other—were driven by GREED before the tech boom, and then they escalated almost logarithmically after the tech boom took hold (because the tech boom is driven by even MORE greed).

I grew up on the mid-peninsula in the 60s and 70s, and what I see when I go back there I find so sad, horrible, and tragic that I want to cry. It's a systemic fucking up of one of the most beautiful places to live all because of how greed took firm hold of significant groups of people (and later huge companies) whose chose to exert control and influence in order to make more and more and more money (and horde it) rather than put human interests—social, quality of life, and general health of the populace at large—first.

[–]HedonisticLo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

YUP. then they just push out the poor people with rent hikes to pull in a new wave of tenants they can charge more.

[–]Inferno221 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh yeah, that also makes sense

[–]AimForTheHead 3 points4 points  (2 children)

You mean like in Queens and Brooklyn? Same problem. NIMBY's who don't want their views hindered by high rises.

[–]Inferno221 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Brooklyn and queens got gentrified too, lol. I guess no one likes to help the poor. Damn shame

[–]svene 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would venture everyone would like to help the poor, just not at their expense. Especially if they own property in those areas. That is SERIOUS value. It's all in the game.

[–]OMGthehorrorLOL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you actually being serious? You have no idea of the history of rent prices in SF and the various economic, political, geographical, and social forces behind how they've changed over the last 50 years. But judging from your turn of phrase "the scene of view," maybe you don't live in the U.S. and/or have never been to/lived in SF. Or maybe you're just trolling.

Apartments in SF are mainly (but not exclusively) expensive circa after about 1997 because of the tech boom. But escalating real estate prices in the Bay Area started earlier than that. The beginning of this financial fiasco was due to Proposition 13 being passed in the 1970s (giving legacy properly owners a HUGE reduction in taxes in perpetuity—at the expense of funding education, no less—whereas new property buyers after Prop 13 passed would be fucked up the ass).

Don't kid yourself. 80% of the housing doesn't have views. Yeah, Pacific Heights and the Marina and tall residential towers—especially those built in the last two decades—might have views. There is a LOT of housing in the city that is your basic three-story victorian with bay windows and crappy heating (and no AC). Views? Usually you're fogged in and getting asthma (if not pneumonia).

[–]HedonisticLo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And oakland. Jesus christ I've never seen the tent cities get this huge.

However they recently did just build "affordable housing" which isn't actually affordable. they just pushed a bunch of people out of their long term housing by jacking up rent because the new buildings made the neighborhood "nicer".

This is their home. they have nowhere to go. this boom started happening right afte ra bunch of 'improvement' projects. Par tof the problem is tons of people are getting displaced from their homes then we say "well just move" okay move where?w ith what money? they were blindsighted and already broke/poor/whatever has put them in their situation. Theres actually a ton of space in the bay (not necessarily the city alone) especially space being taken up by condemned housing and old industrial/empty factories.

[–]Danilowaifers 61 points62 points  (15 children)

You're forgetting that a large amount of our homeless are people who just can't handle taking care of themselves. You could give them an apartment and sometimes they'll use it other times they'll just go back to sleeping on stairs and pooping in subway cars.

Being homeless is just a symptom for something else.

[–]The_artifact123 17 points18 points  (1 child)

I've heard of a couple programs that assist long term homeless find housing. A lot end up trashing the apartments because they dont have the skills to live alone in an apartment (probably part of the reason they are homeless). Housing assistance is nothing with out programs to help them learn to live independently.

[–]TacticalStudiesRules -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Oh, you've 'heard' .

well, I heard they get better, their mental illness because more manageable, it is cheaper then having people on the street, and you can have actual health care professionals help them, and you can get the a central place to sue welfare as a building block.

Of course, I've just heard that from experts who hace done that, I'm sure you 'heard' it from an equally valise source. /s

[–]TacticalStudiesRules 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Just giving them a place to sleep is the beginning of getting their life together, not the start. Everything else will fail until they have a private place they can go.

[–]jmpalermo 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The "Housing First" model used by Utah is fantastic and has a better success rate than anything else tried at large scale. It was actually started by "Pathways to Housing" in New York City which is still successfully helping homeless people today.

It's still not a magic bullet though, Utah didn't really fix its homeless problem overnight, most of the success is just from changing how they count and classify homeless: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-corinth/think-utah-solved-homeles_b_9380860.html

[–]WinningIsForWinners 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Cliffs: New York has an over population problem.

[–]readmeink 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Update: Utah has recently gotten an influx to the homeless population, and it’s set in motion some rather controversial attempts to clean up the areas of Salt Lake City near the homeless shelter. Not to mention, no one seems to want a new homeless shelter built in their area (for variety of reasons, not all of which are selfish.) Utah was doing well for a bit, but we definitely have some hurdles to overcome.

[–]ShalmaneserIII 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Unless we start shipping our homeless upstate (which people would protest over) it's not possible.

What's the current price for a used cruise ship?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Honestly that could work

[–]ShalmaneserIII 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Kitchens, food storage, laundry facilities, room for staff, housing in spades, not only power but independent power if need be, mobile in a pinch- by its own power or tugboat, room for training facilities or even its own small business areas. I'm just not sure how much it costs to maintain one of the things instead of an actual building of comparable size.

[–]throttlejohnson 4 points5 points  (4 children)

SoCal busses people up to NorCal all the time

[–]jackcalx 9 points10 points  (3 children)

lol. Please. More like everyone buses them here to California.

[–]Redeem123 2 points3 points  (1 child)

To be fair, California IS super cool to the homeless.

[–]IShotJohnLennon 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Well, you won't freeze to death in the streets in December so that's pretty cool for the homeless...

[–]crunkadocious 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Both things are true

[–]Phillipinsocal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would being a “sanctuary city” help your homeless cause? Honest question.

[–]jackcalx 1 point2 points  (3 children)

We're never going to solve the homeless crisis because we're never going to have enough space to provide the necessary long term housing for rehabilitation.

Last time I check NY has plenty of space to make housing.

The cost of living in the city is ridiculous and part of that is we don't have enough space.

When was NYC NY state? Last time I check it wasn't. That is akin to saying say Los Angeles is all of California when its not.

Unless we start shipping our homeless upstate (which people would protest over) it's not possible.

No one is going to protest you shipping your homeless out west. You easterners hate the west coast.

[–]defau2t 2 points3 points  (2 children)

When was NYC NY state? Last time I check it wasn't. That is akin to saying say Los Angeles is all of California when its not.

I think it's worth noting that about 70-75% of New York state's homeless population is in New York City.

[–]Doctor0000 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Humans migrate to favorable conditions, unchecked social issues effect people who are not "responsible" for them, water is wet.

[–]defau2t 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My point being NYC getting the focus over NY state. So "the cost of living in the city [NYC].." being a more significant aspect of NY homelessness than the cost of living of NY state.

[–]GaslightvsIconoclast 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Gonna have to start making buildings vertically now thanks to this guy.

[–]crunkadocious 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Can always bus the homeless to a place upstate that you built free housing in. Oh wait that makes too much sense.

[–]TacticalStudiesRules 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just so you know, you would also need to have health care professions, professional that can do/go over paperwork so they can get welfare, you would need to be kind with a long term plan with funding.

It would work, but it needs to be ran in a way that is kind and understanding where everyone has the goal to help get people on their feet long term.

If that doesn't happen, then the homeless need to be where the people and services are.

[–]SinkHoleDeMayo -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Maybe when Kusher goes down the government can just confiscate 666 Fifth Ave and make it into city operated housing.

Unfortunately lots of properties in large cites are owned by foreigners looking for places to sink money. As a country we really need to crack down on money laundering and people buying up property en masse. Toronto and Vancouver also also experiencing property booms that are pushing out locals and with tons of homes not even being lived in.

[–]crunkadocious 5 points6 points  (0 children)

That's a really good price. I normally get about 1,200 USD but they can sell in serious bulk.

[–]Calgary72 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Won’t change a damn thing

[–]Terratoast[🍰] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

That's an incredibly short article and leaves many questions unanswered.

How is the money being distributed around the 579 programs? Is it only for housing and self-sufficient programs or will it also include things like psychiatric and other medical help if needed? What was their criteria for choosing which programs get more?

[–]funkofanatic95 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I hope this money actually is used to help the homeless! In 2014 I visited the city by myself & went out at 5am and noticed how many people there really were out there. A lot of them were nice. Some were very perverted. But all of them no matter the background deserved to be somewhere other than on the streets struggling to stay warm & likely not having a nice meal or warm shower in awhile.

[–]throttlejohnson 10 points11 points  (0 children)

that's great, use more tax payer money to "solve the homeless problem", they will help a handful of people, make it public, and then poof all the money is gone and there will still be a homeless problem.

[–]particleaccelerators 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hopefully this will buy shelters with heat and clean water

[–]jrose6717 3 points4 points  (5 children)

This may seem like a weird question. But if housing is so expensive there. Couldn't they ship out the homeless to a less dense area where they could help them all?

[–]GateauBaker 2 points3 points  (1 child)

The homeless don't want to move.

[–]jrose6717 2 points3 points  (0 children)

From my experience with them I'd agree. A lot of the ones I have met are homeless by choice.

[–]zappadattic 1 point2 points  (1 child)

It has to be somewhere that already has the infrastructure and services in place for a population boom. Considering our infrastructure is falling apart nationally that'd be hard to find.

[–]jrose6717 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't think it would be that hard to find.

[–]ifellonpoop 6 points7 points  (2 children)

I'm sure 180 million will be spent on "administrative fees"

[–]fatlammers 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Pretty sure that number will be closer to 250 million

[–]ComicalKumquat 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yeaaaahhhh about $150 is gonna go to the homeless and the rest is gonna go to raises for the people that allocated that $150 to the homeless

[–]Sam5813 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What can actually be done for the homeless?

While some you can house and help there are far too many who you can't help, who don't want help or are too fucked up they'll continue to fuck up time after time. They're the ones who are hardest to treat/help.

[–]showmeurboobsplznthx 2 points3 points  (7 children)

That's 2000 for each of the 100000 homeless there...

[–]scarecrow7248 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Where i live homeless people frequently receive benefits checks for $2000 dollars monthly. They're still homeless. They spend the money on booze and dope and maybe a hotel room and then go back to relying on charity and handouts until the next check arrives. Where i live 2000 dollars would provide everything you need to live including rent.

[–]bardwick 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Yep. My brother get's almost $2,000 per month in aid. 15 years homeless.

[–]scarecrow7248 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's a very nuanced situation with no obvious solution. They need our love and to be treated as humans, but no amount of money will ever fix it. The homeless community here is well cared for but how much is too much and is it really helping them in end? Too many resources go to those who just exploit the opportunity and never move on as opposed to those who just need a hand to help and then go on being productive citizens.

[–]imgladimnothim 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Addiction sucks. Bad. I hope some of this money will go to drug abuse recovery centers

[–]zikol88 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Well to be fair, that’s 2000 for each of the 100000 homeless there for one month for one payout. If they were to manage the money correctly and put them in a fund that would payout perpetually into the future (only drawing from the interest and not the principle, using the four percent rule as the withdrawal rate) then it would be closer to 8mil per year or 80 bucks per homeless person per year

[–]stumpdumb 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For all the good it will do they might as well light that money on fire.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I bet not even $1,000,000 is spent on the homeless

[–]gotacogo 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Why stop there? Why not just claim zero dollars are going to be spent on the homeless?

[–]Aegisuv 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That seems like a fair trade. Who gets the homeless?

[–]MadamePresident 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Who did they sell them to?

[–]rch7953 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Probably to ship them to los angeles

[–]A_delta 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They'll probably use that money to build an extermination camp or something.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How much is that per homeless person? Who's buying them? Are they going to be slaves?

[–]Boblawblahh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"affordable housing projects". I'll be curious to see just how many truly homeless people end up with one of those homes after the 200 million is gone.

[–]OMGthehorrorLOL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This thread is making me lose my mind. I can't remember the last time I saw so much misinformation in one thread. And I've never been more convinced than now that reddit has become 65% shills, 34.1% teenagers, and .9% actual, intelligent people.

[–]uberpwnzorz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't worry, I'm sure most of it will go to someone with a nice home.

[–]goosecarr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wonder how much will go into trying to improve mental health and treat mental illness.

[–]Cottenswab 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You put on a damn eye patch son.

[–]VoraciousTrees 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They should just buy a mothballed cruise ship and turn it into projects, rivet city style.

[–]WhyIThurtswhenIP 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Later to missing you say?

[–]PepperballsLMAO 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wonder how much of that $2 million they will actually get.

[–]TelaTheSpy -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

One of the most sad parts is one of the many NY billionaires could give far more than this amount to personally help their state and it wouldn’t really hurt their bottom line.

[–]Cottenswab -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Build a big wall around New York City and send all the homeless people and criminals there to do whatever they want.

[–]Gonarat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What happens if Air Force One crashes within the walls?

[–]HIVnotAdeathSentence -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

If Cuomo was welcoming of the new tax law, not suing over it, they would have more money to help the homeless and NY in general.

[–]chisau -1 points0 points  (0 children)

They will spend it on clearing the homeless off the streets , not on helping