WTF are we supposed to be looking at? I see a subway sign, people walking, etc. Normal day in just about any city in North America.
No, you’re confusing the homeless with SDMB moderators.
OK, so it’s not just me…
Utah County (home of Provo, etc.) had a policy similar to this. The police would pick up a homeless person and…simply drop them off at the county line. Helps keep the vagrancy stats down.
I’m not sure, but I think that’s a Subway restaurant. Atrocity indeed – I want that funky wedge-cut sandwich bread back, dammit!
I haven’t noticed a reduction of homeless people in NY in the last decade. The one improvement is that the squeegee guys are gone.
Yeah, why?
Let me guess, someone asked you if liked comedy (my usual response: “this IS comedy”), or whether you’d like to purchase a book on 1,001 sex positions (“I thought there were only 2”), or whether you’ve found Jesus (“It’s pronounced Hay-SOOS, and he’s not interested!”).
What a great idea!! But wait, what about the fact that homelessness is not just about unemployment? Dammit, there’s that pesky issue of so many of the homeless being diagnosed with a mental illness, with dual diagnoses and a drug/alcohol addiction to top it off. So now I guess we need to implement social programs that try to treat these issues in addition to finding housing and jobs.
Oh wait, we’ve been unsuccessfully trying that for decades.
Ok, next idea?
The number of homeless in any particular area is a function of supply and demand. Demand = the number of homeless. Supply = the value and availability of social services. Supply is a function of how accommodating a city is to homeless people; the more accommodating the city is, the higher the supply (by definition), and thus the easier it is to get service.
A city that generously accommodates/caters to homeless people (high supply) creates a high demand for homelessness. If supply is decreased, demand (the number of homeless) will decrease in step. Where do they go? Two places:
-
Work. Supply will decrease to the point that work becomes more enticing to many homeless people.
-
Move. Many homeless will move to a city with higher supply.
It’s from the new and “improved” Times Square. It just doesn’t look the way a subway station should.
Or it’s just me.
2 ??
OK 3. The other ones are just variations on the 3 themes.
Beyond the overly cutesy spelling of “Skechers” and an eyebleeding amount of neon, I don’t see anything wrong. Some of Montreal’s subway stations are artsy, too.
Oh, ye of little or no imagination.
Cagey Drifter. First, let me apologize to you for having to move your thread. You correctly started it out in General Questions.
Unfortunately, too many of our members think that questions posted there are fair game for immediate humor, poliltical comments, opinions, general chit-chat, and mind-numbing stupidity. Since I had to work all day, I couldn’t, in a timely manner, warn any of them about the separation of fora on this board.
This one is going to IMHO. You can still get factual answers there, and the offenderati can continue to post drivel.
samclem GQ moderator
Much like Eve’s homeless - they’re still here too. Especially in the High Bridge & more southern sections of the Bronx.
The deal is that NY’s underground stations almost all have entrances that look like this. The aboveground stations look like this. Functional, urban, and not at all neon.
In fact, that one set of entrances in Times Square is utterly unlike any of the others, but it does fit in with the neighborhood. I’m assuming that gigi liked the old Times Square, which didn’t look quite like that.
Idle curiosity, mostly. I’ve noticed that ideas and attitudes similar to the one you aired earlier in this thread are relatively common among native Texans, although not universally to be sure. I believe it must be something in the water that causes such attitudes.
I meant I can only think of one.
