I got back from NYC a couple of weeks ago (offside it is a really great city) and as I was walking to work in Chicago being accosted by homeless it occured to me I only saw two homeless in NYC. I spent most of my time in Manhattan but I went to the Bronx, Brooklyn, Staten Island and there were none. Not in Times Square, not in Battery Park, not on Wall Street.
Did I just miss them. Oh sure I saw three or four stands in Time Square where homeless orginizatons had some clean cut people sitting very quitely and nicely on a table but not the agressive panhandling you get in Chicago.
And the two homeless I did see were both in Greenwich Village and they were just sitting with signs saying please help. They didn’t say anything to anyone.
What is going on? Am I missing them? Or if they removed them where did they put them?
I guess they came out west to Seattle. I see them all the time. Mostly the kind that stand at stoplights and hold a sign with a catchy slogan, yet you see the same one in the same spot, day after day, for months on end. Seems like they are only making an effort to stay drunk.
I can’t say for sure where all the homeless have gone in this fair city. They’re still around, of course, but those of us who live here are more likely to see them than visitors are. For the past several years, our mayor (Rudolph “Adolf” Giuliani) has been waging a fairly successful attempt to “clean up” NYC. Ask City Hall if you’re really that curious – they may even give you a tour of the camps. :rolleyes:
They’ve either been arrested or driven underground. Someday, someone will care enough to investigate. With the rising price of housing in New York, apartments aren’t getting any more affordable, so without intervention, their ranks should be growing, not shrinking. Something’s going on, and no one seems to care.
The cost of housing has nothing to do with the homeless problem in NYC. The majority of homeless are mentally ill, addicted to drugs/alchohol and/or unemployed. They are not just regular people who can’t find an appartment because the rent is too high.
Cap’n Crude - I take it from your comments that you disapprove of Giulianis policies in regards to cleaning up New York. Perhaps we could return to the days when there was a crack head on every subway car.
Allowing the homeless the run of the street doesn’t help the problem any more than ignoring it.
Part of Giuliani’s success in cleaning up NY has to do with initiating crackdowns on “quality of life” offenses such as public drunkenness, tresspassing, sidewalk obstruction, and panhandling. This has had the effect of removing the “visible” homeless from the streets of Manhattan to other boroughs or less-strict municipalities. There’s nothing draconian or Hitleresque about enforcing the reasonable, long-standing statues that other administrations have chosen to ignore. No one can argue that NY is worse off for it. Incidentally, by enforcing the laws against less serious crime, there’s been a corresponding reduction in more violent crime. I suspect that the Chicago police are “too busy” to deal with lesser offenses.
On the national scene, when the Democrats are in charge, you don’t hear much about the homeless - because Dems are kind are loving towards ALL people, especially those most unfortunate souls. When Republicans are in charge, based on the news coverage, you’d think the homeless are everywhere - the result of cruel and mean-spirited policies aimed at eliminating the poor, addicted street vermin. I’m sure that this Thanksgiving we’ll hear a lot about how George Bush, Jr. has personally put families on the street.
Most homelessness is temporary. Most of the rest are addicts who prefer the lifestyle. If you offer a bum $10 for food or $5 for fortified wine, chances are he’ll pick the wine. It’s sad, but you can’t help someone who doesn’t want to be helped.
This is an outrageous claim! Evilhanz, I don’t wish to cast aspersions on your character, but I can only believe that your assertion is one developed by ignorance and prejudice rather than fact.
The truth is not so simple.
Many homeless people are mentally ill. Many are never given the chance for help because they are processed as criminals instead of people in need of care. Others refuse treatment and if you saw the way that indigent, mentally ill people are treated in New York City institutions, you would probably refuse treatment as well.
Some of the homeless are people that have suffered from some sort of abuse in their homes and would rather live on the streets than continue to be abused. Many are poeple that right from the beginning weren’t given the same fair shake that many of us have enjoyed.
I could go on and on with examples.
Sure, there are addicts and drunks living homeless on the streets of New York, but I assure you that none of them “prefer the lifestyle”. Would you rather sleep in a bed or on subway grate? The answer is simple. No one wants to be homeless. No one that is suffering doesn’t want help. To believe that someone does is myopic and sad.
Also, shuffling the homeless from one municipality to another is not a solution and completely unacceptable. To believe that this is acceptable behavior demonstrates a massive lack of creativity and intelligence and also reveals a cold and cruel nature that I would argue does make New York City a worse place to live.
Anyone living in New York City knows that Guiliani’s policies here have nothing to do with “quality of life” and everything to do with economics. Even the people that like his policies agree with this.
This Thanksgiving, many liberals won’t have time to hear about the many families Bush, Jr. has put on the streets because they will be too busy feeding them in soup kitchens and shelters across the city. Just like many of them do almost every weekend.
I’m sure this thread will be moved so let me take this last second to answer the OP’s question. There’s plenty of homeless people in New York City. You probably just missed them. Even during a short visit, they eventually just blend into the landscape.
How can you say that? The cost of apartments in NYC are outrageously high. I even have a friend who’s a doctor who is having trouble finding something decent. What do regular people do? Where do they go? Sure, some of the homeless are mentally ill or drug addicts, but you’d be surprised how many of the homeless are just regular folks who can’t make ends meet. Including many children. Open your eyes, and your heart!
Outrageous, but true. You damn me with faint praise, felix. If calling someone ignorant and prejudiced is not character malignment, I don’t know what is. I can only assume that your naivety is an indicator of youth and inexperience.
As to my “outrageous” claims, they are based in fact and experience.
As to the temporary nature of homelessness. Homelessness is broadly defined, and although there are those who never seek emergency shelter, counting those who do is a fairly reliable bellwether. In New York, about 29,000 people receive emergency shelter each night - 6,400 families and 10,000 individuals. Combined funding to assist these needy folks runs about $350 million annually. (in FY $444 million) Unfortunately, there isn’t much data which can accurately determine the effectiveness of any of the various service programs. CTG - Page Not Found For homeless families, the situation is temporary in 80% or more of the cases over a 5-year period. From http://www.nlihc.org/bookshelf/shinn.htm :
I couldn’t find stats online for singles, but their situations tend to be longer lasting and the inncidences of addiction and illness higher than families. Only something like 7% of homeless individuals have a mental illness (in it’s broadest terms).
I don’t know where your information comes from, but it reminds me of the exaggerated news reports from the late 1980’s. Over the past few years there has been a concerted effort to improve the services available to those who want help, especially since the Dept of Homeless Services was established by Giuliani in 1999. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dhs/html/aboutnycdhs.html The conditions and treatment options are probably the best anywhere in the country. There are no warehouse style shelters with row upon row of cots. Most are housed in temporary apartments or hotels. Housing subsidies are offered and one of the more effective programs going. Those who are ill or addicts have access to opt-in treatment programs or assessment. They’re not the cuckoo’s nests you’re conjuring up. Treatment is voluntary and the govt really can’t be blamed for not illegaly “forcing” treatment on anyone. Also, it’s not illegal for someone to chose to be a chronic drunk.
However, there is a professional “bum” class. Those who, despite your claims, prefer the lifestyle (yup, lifestyle). I had the pleasure of knowing a nice middle-aged couple who lived in my local ATM in Boston. They panhandled most days during the summer, and took the bus to Florida where presumably, they did the same in warmer temps for the rest of the year. Unlike most pros, they weren’t addicts. They did it because they didn’t want to hold down jobs or have any responsibilities. Down the street in the Fens, your prototypical aggressive bums stood in front of the liquor stores shaking down passersby for “spare change”, ostensibly for bus fares back home to visit a dying relative, or “Vietnam Vets” despite being under the age of 30. Several years ago, the City of Boston decided to offer “food certificates” for people to give to panhandlers in lieu of cash which, of course, could be used to buy drugs or liquor. It was a resounding failure. A local radio host countered this program with a sociological experiement of his own. Offer a bum $10 for food or $5 for wine. I already told you which was preferred 10 to 1. It really happened. I was there. I’ve also been around the professional homeless. I’ve seen the behavior first hand, I’ve talked with some of them, enough to know that for many long-timers, it’s a preference.
I think for most suburbanites the thought of the poor, helpless homeless appeals to their liberal instincts. They’re an interesting curiosity - a tourist attraction, if you will - on the trips to the big city. I don’t know a single urbanite with an ounce of sense in his/her head who would give a quarter to a bum thinking it was going to a worthwhile cause.
In short, families and individuals who become homeless through bad luck, a shortage of housing, or economic disadvantage are receiving help in NY. The addicts have been rousted by the police who have been given a mandate to clean up the streets and enforce the law. As such, the highly visible, aggressive bums Markxxx described have moved on to greener pastures. Yay! for everyone.
No hard feelings, felix? My apologies for the excessive vitirol in my original post.
Saying that many homeless are mentally ill and that many do not really want to be helped is not a contradiction. They’re MENTALLY ILL.
In college my friends and I attempted a “rescue” of a teenage kid, but honestly, with his ingorance and mental/spiritual state there was no helping him. He ran away from the program we got him in and would not take advantage of the help given him.
Was he ungrateful? I think he didn’t even properly perceive the opportunities we were offering. So he was both mentally unstable and unwilling to be helped.
Also, I have to say that there are large traces of the bleeding heart around here. Are you saying that people who commit criminal acts are not criminals if you think they are mentally ill? Should they then be excused? I understand giving them treatment, but if they’re a danger to society, then at some point they have to be removed from it.
Also, it seems that because Gulliani is a Republican, he can do nothing without a love of money being at the root. Of course he doesn’t have any sort of real concern for the quality of life of the people of New York.
I might also add that only a true liberal would act as if protecting the small businesses of one’s constituents is close to reprehensible. When you own a business, we’ll see if you vote to have crime removed from your area. This is just the kind of elitist Liberal with a capital L kind of crap that I can’t stand. My being able to operate my business in peace and not wondering if the guy next to me is going to go on some drug-induced violent trip IS my quality of life, or part of it.
I understand wanting to help the mentally ill, but at least then just take issue with the particular methods used, and don’t act like money and people who need it are bad.
They go to Hoboken, Brooklyn, Queens, Norwalk CT, or Stamford CT, or they move to a city they can afford. Atlanta is pretty cheap.
Do you have any figures to back this up? In all the literature I’ve read, MOST homeless are mentally ill or substance abusers. Even if the majority actually are regular folks, these aren’t the chronic homeless you see panhandling and banging paintcan-drums for change. Those people are not a meal and a shower away from turning themselves around.
Like evilhanz said, Go down by Fenway in Boston at night. There are (or were) always bums agressively asking people for change. The latest trend seems to be asking people for money so they can ‘catch a cab home’, or ‘fix their car’, or some other line of bull.
I was going to rent an appartment in the area, but i didn’t want to run a gauntlet of bums every night on the way home from work. So, tell me. Is it worth it to the city to give up $1,000 a month in rent so some people who don’t even work (or pay taxes) can hang out on the street corner harassing people?
Do I actually share the planet with some of you people?! I can’t believe it.
Evilhanz, I appreciate your making “nice-nice”. I also thank you for letting me know that at least my views make me look young. God knows my face and body sure don’t. Sorry to single you out Evilhanz, you’re obviously not alone on this one…but I’ve got to tell you all…you’re way off base here.
Using the entertaining “studies” of radio talk show hosts, the web sites of the people that provide the crappy programs or your own twisted, provincial opinions, fears and experiences to back your arguments doesn’t exactly sway me. Pataki and Guiliani’s programs may seem fine on their own web sites or in a press release - but the reality is far different.
Yes, there are still “gymnasium-style” shelters in New York City. Yes, some of them do look like freaking bedlam. Do many homeless people get sent directly to jail rather than shelters? Yes - especially if they don’t want to go to a shelter. If you saw some of these shelters (especially the bathrooms) or met the some of the staff, you might not want to go there either. Is any of this supposed to be changing? Yes. Is it? No.
The truth is that the treatment of homeless people in New York City shelters and other institutions is deplorable. One facility here has a wonderful track record of dispensing a powerful anti-psychotic called Haldol to anyone they feel might need it. This includes people that are not mentally ill…for instance people that are mentally retarded, addicted to drugs and alcohol or just plain anti-social. Great program there. Not to mention that they expect you work for your shelter and the expenses of the treatment or you will be evicted. Attempting to work while on Haldol or Lithium must be a singular treat. Great program there. Funny, I didn’t see that on any of those State of New York websites. You notice they don’t really advertise the methods, just the programs and how much money they cost. Also, while 29,000 people may be housed every night in NYC, the homeless population has sometimes been estimated as high as 80,000. Shiver me timbers! We’re making progress now! Another fun fact about NYC homeless shelters: they are allowed to kick people out and permanently deny admittance for first time minor offenses like smoking in the bathroom. Ever try explaining to someone with an IQ of 50 that if they smoke in the bathroom they can never come back? Woo-hoo! Where do I sign up?! The reality of these programs is enough to make you want to be sick. Imagine someone you love and care about being subjected to this kind of treatment. You’d be outraged.
I can’t stress enough here that you are not breaking the law if you don’t have a place to live. Also, mentally ill people that commit criminal acts are criminals - but mentally ill people that are homeless are not criminals. Being homeless is not a criminal act!
Take your mind off your wallet and your own comfort for five minutes and you might see the flaws in your logic. Heck, you might even develop some compassion.
And for those that believe Liberals (I like the capital L…it has an air of authority, just like the capital G in God) believe that money is the root of all evil that is not entirely true. Liberals believe that LOTS of money is the root of all evil. Listen to me. Guiliani does not have the small business owner’s interests in mind. You’ve been sold a line my friend. You’ve bought the line and now stand ready to be sold out. If you owned a small business in New York City you better pray that you stay out of the way of Guiliani’s expansion and plans for “bettering” New York. Plenty of small businesses have been bulldozed into closing up shop under Guiliani on obscure zoning laws, immigration infringements, etc. to make way for the Disneys and Conde Nasts. I’ve got nothing against honest people trying to make an honest buck and protecting their interests along the way. I do however have a problem with dishonest people that are already rich attempting to amass even more money at the expense of others.
I’m not going to take the time to go point by point through all this. I understand where many of you fall on this issue. I just want to know what you propose we do about it?
Do you propose we ignore it? Are you just satisfied believing that homeless people prefer living that way? Believing that because things worked out for you, you deserve to be free from the burden of other’s misfortunes by any means necessary? Should people that can afford homes just not move to areas where there are a lot of homeless people so that you don’t have to look them? Should we let them die out and hope that no more people become homeless? Do we shuffle them off to other places by enforcing human rights infringing laws? Let them be someone else’s problem? Maybe someplace that doesn’t have the resources to deal with it like NYC does? What exactly do you suggest?
I wouldn’t call the views of anyone who lives in Boston or Chicago “provincial”.
[semi-hijack] I Lived in San Francisco, on the Presidio (Fmr. Army, Base, now Nat’l Park) for a couple of years in High School.
My Dad was in the Marines, so instead of trying to find a house in the SF Bay Area, the DoD gave us one on the Presidio (Which, by then, was a Park).
Anyway, the City College of San Francisco came out with a study that said there were 16,000 (!) Homeless people in SF. I Believe it. At the time, people were complaining about Homeless “Shantytowns” in Golden Gate Park.
So, The illustrious Mayor Willie Brown (who burned up $100 Mil. or so on a Gold Plated Dome for city hall) Cleaned out GGP. Of course, this sent them in all directions, including onto Presidio Nat’l Park, which had several hundred military families in it.
The good mayor came up with a plan: “How about we put the Homeless on old enlisted Housing on the Presidio?”
Nevermind that 1) Some of the Housing was still in use, and 2) It was Federal Land.
When the Presdio Turst (The Junta that rules there with a iron fist) laughed in his face, he managed to get the good people of SF to pass a proposition that ** withdrew garbage pickup, utilities, and mass transit ** unless the unused Enlisted housing was used for “Low-income” people.
The Presidio Turst (after consulting with representatives from the various neighborhoods) said “Fine” and Promptly rented the Houses and Barracks at low, low prices for Students!!!
Amazingly, Brown and his Liberal Clique tried to bring the Presidio Trust to court, claiming that “They had a obl;igation to help out” (Nevermind that the Former Navy Base @Treasure Island became city property, and Willie was handing out Admiral homes to friends).
Last I heard of it was a snippet in * Newsweek * sometime last year, the City was still angry at the Presidio Trust. [/semi-hijack]
My apologies for the excessive vitirol in my original post.