New York City is known as a compassionate, liberal metropolis. Those who don't want homeless shelters in their neighborhoods are concerned that the homeless not have to suffer the indignities these residents face everyday. Everyone, from those who live in Queens, to those in Brooklyn, to the midtown dwellers such as Suzanne Silverstein, knows the best place for NYC homeless shelters is on Staten Island.
1
Good for the residents of Maspeth. What in the world is wrong the fools in government? Taxpayers should not be forced to house bums, junkies, perverts, hobos, vagrants in one of the most expensive cities in the country. The city ought to begin legal measures to overturn the ruling (by a female judge) that the city must provide housing.
5
Talk to the people who live near the shelter on 31st Street and ask them how "shameful" it is not to be mad at the homelss criminals, beggars and vandals who were brought in without your knowledge or approval and have transformed your neighborhood. It's real easy to pick on the people like those on 58th Street but pick any nice residential block and you'll get the same reaction to plopping down a men's homeless shelter.
6
Can someone explain how warehousing men at $3000 per month per room(without kitchens) is somehow good for them or the community, or the taxpayers? I see how the owner of hotel benefits - 100% occupancy at top rate, no marketing. How about changing the law that forces New York City to house each and everyone who demands it (not the law in any of other city or town in USA)? How are these midtown residents shameful? They already live in midtown which since BDB has been Mayor now has out of town vagrants sprawled out on every block (the reason I left midtown). How much are the taxpayers of New York supposed to take? Ironically, for thousands of dollars less per month, New York city could rent apartments and homes in other parts of the country and house thousands of more people. how about sending the ones who have no true NYC connection back home and let their towns be responsible.
7
“Yes, we live comfortably,” Ms. Silverstein told me, “but he’s not sticking it to billionaires, he’s sticking it to people like myself who work 100 hours a week. We’re not bad people. We’re just trying to get ahead.”
NMBY takes many forms. Basically what Ms. Silverstein is saying is "not in my backyard".....or, "just stick it over there.
As Ms. Silverstein slides between her 1200 cotton thread count sheets....., on the 28th Floor of the Night Hawks Apts., .....
I live very close to a men's shelter in a pretty popular spot in Manhattan (E. Village). I work off hours so it means coming home after midnight five nights a week.
I haven't had a problem with my neighbors. There are frequent police patrols and a hired security team. (Personally, I feel more threatened by the people who live outside of my neighborhood, that come for the restaurants, theaters and bars.)
2
Re: the planned Park Savoy shelter: This is NOT an issue of NIMBY. That is such an easy, age-old, uneducated, go-to response. At our recent gathering, every neighbor I spoke with actively volunteers in aiding the homeless, both hands-on and financially, willingly giving of their time and hard earned paychecks. Why is it so difficult to understand the simple fact that NOT EVERY “BACK YARD” is suitable for a homeless shelter of 140 men — morally, ethically, physically, or financially?
Recently, The NY Daily News blew the lid off the city’s unconscionable coverup of the actual crime statistics at NYC shelters. In truth, there were 674 ARRESTS (for weapons, drugs, assault, etc.)in only the FIRST 3 MONTHS of 2018! And those were just the calls that resulted in ACTUAL ARRRSTS. No surprise, given the mayor’s parolee-direct-to-shelter plan. Last year, 4,000+ parolees were sent DIRECTLY from PRISON to neighborhood shelters — where they were jammed together with other parolees, violating the condition of parole not to consort with other parolees! On W. 58th Street, this puts hardened criminals within a few feet of hundreds of families.
The planned shelter could also not be more fiscally irresponsible. Spending $50,000 per man/yr to house men — temporarily — 2-3 to a tiny room is ridiculous, and is also 38% MORE THAN THE AVERAGE COST!
I haven’t begun to address the total lack of planned police presence on congested 58th St.... but I’m late for my shift at the soup kitchen.
5
How can anyone deny shelter for our fellow citizens? Would you rather they sleep on your street corner? Giving them a roof allows them a place to got to work from. Without an address, many jobs wouldn't even consider hiring them.
Don't kid yourself; these men DON'T work
5
Many Americans are just one medical or health crisis away from homelessness. One vehicle accident away from losing their jobs, income and houses. And it happens to people like yourself each and every day in America.
5
This is another reason why Trump. Citizens in "flyover" American have woken up. People are the same everywhere -- the put self-interest first. The rest of the country sees that the sanctimonious upper middle class on the Coasts are not willing to share opportunity, let alone make room in properous cities, for folks from the rest of the country. In fact, they just want to push out and export their poor.
4
Living in Manhattan is a privilege, not a right. I worked for 15 years to gain the skills and save the money to get here. if I lose my job and run out of money, who will help me? No one.
12
Right on Judi
7
One homeless man who used to work is quoted in the article. How many who would be housed there have a job? How many are mentally ill, addicted to drugs and or alcohol? How many are dangerous and could harm people living nearby or walking down the street?
9
So many illegal immigrants to worry over—who cares about these homeless Americans, right?
13
It's inspiring that some in power are insisting on the needed housing despite the needlessly fearful backlash. Your columnist Mr. Edsall recently pointed out with solid research just such hypocrisy on the affluent Left. Will New Yorkers be able to rise above that and be a good example for the nation?
6
The idiocy comes around again. I remember when the City ruined The Bronx by turning the Concourse Plaza Hotel into a drug den for the 'less fortunate'. The whole Bronx went down the toilet with crime and rape. Now, it's round two.
9
Years ago, homeless could move to a town, get a low-level entry job like dishwashing or busboy, and gradually improve their lot.
Today, these jobs are done by illegals.
Illegals take the jobs from homeless. Yet liberals continue to defend this unfair job theft. These ARE jobs that Americans will do - Americans who need a job, any job. Allowing the illegals to steal these jobs perpetuates the homeless problem. And, yes, there is a drug problem. If you don't have a job, you consider drugs. If you have a job, you are less likely to do that. We need also policies which allow people to get off drugs, WHILE WORKING
6
Logically, wouldn’t the optics and security of a community be better served by having homeless people have access to shelter and being off the streets?
7
Liberals suddenly turn into conservatives when they bump into their own foolish policies.
7
NIMBYs are repulsive no matter where they reside. They are especially reprehensible in ostensibly liberal enclaves which love their fellow man as long as they look, smell and act just like them. It’s just as repulsive where I reside in Portland where we seem to care more about bike lanes than the homeless that crowd every bio swale in the city.
6
Until they are ruining your neighborhood
4
PLEASE educate yourself on the facts about this particular proposed shelter location. It is NOT a NIMBY issue!!!!!
3
Please check your facts, Mara Gay. Most of what you say in the article is untrue! If you merely wanted to write a racist article, you have succeeded.
If you wanted to write a truthful article, you failed miserably. The truth is the Maspeth shelter is still housing homeless people. The truth is that we have many homeless shelters in this immediate area. The truth is that people/families are still living in a single room without kitchen facilities. The truth is NYC pays $5000 a month for these hotel rooms. The truth is that this continues without any signs of it being addressed. If you really want to help, try exposing the corruption that surrounds the housing of families in a single room, and please refrain from suggesting that the protest was racially motivated. You are clueless.
15
As someone who was involved in the Maspeth protests, I can attest that at no time did we "spew hate as homeless children sat inside". First of all, the chants and speeches were directed at the elected officials and profiteers, not at the homeless. Second, the hotel with the children referenced here was empty as the city very publicly announced they were taking the kids on a field trip that day and even put out a video of the event. The "racially tinged" protest video was produced by the Mayor's office featuring a dubbed in audio clip of a voice chanting "white lives matter" which is not something any of the organized protests partook in. Nowhere does any video exist of protesters chanting anything remotely racist. Last year, the mayor, with much fanfare, announced that the city would stop using hotels as shelters, something that progressives agree is a positive, yet they simultaneously castigate anyone who objects to continuing down the path of making slumlord hotel owners wealthy while offering no real solution to the homeless problem. They can't have it both ways. The bottom line is that there should be outrage everywhere and from everyone that the homeless are being warehoused in hotels when 1) It doesn't work and 2) the mayor said he was putting and end to it yet up to now has made no strides toward that goal.
11
This is the exact same kind of Democratic Party lunacy that is going on in California/ glad to see New Yorkers standing strong against things that do not make common sense !
7
Manhattan liberals love supporting handouts, porous borders, unchecked immigration as long as it does not impact them. A homeless shelter in your neighborhood is a preview of what happens in other parts of USA by supporting illegal immigration. Get used to Trump or his likes winning elections.
6
The oligarchy has successfully pitted the rich and the aspiration of those trying to achieve that status against the interests of 90% of us. How? Just demonize the victims. These people should be out in force demanding subsidized housing projects ( think Mitchell-Lama of the 1950's) and union jobs in every walk of life. It won't be long before even those who think of themselves as "liberal", will accept the sanitized version of their world. Hide the disabled and the poor from view. If you want to live in a third world country, you are well on your way. Just remember that fascism and totalitarianism will not stop there.
4
Ah liberals, just as bigoted and racist as their conservative opponents. Who would have thought that? Ah, NIMBY.
7
NYC has done this to itself, with the rise of anti-building, anti-development, anti-human regulations that choke off any sense of reality. And the NYT has cheered those regulations on, because as far as Mara Gay and the rest of the NYT staff can tell, more regulation makes everything better. Hey, Mara, when was the last time the NYT added more rules to how you do your job that made your job easier to do and made you more productive? Yeah, I thought so: Never. In fact, in the entirety of human living, adding regulations has only ever made human living more onerous.
5
Lefties are all for shelters as long as they are in someone else's neighborhood!
4
Maspeth City Councilman Bob Holden is the consummate jerk. He’s also an ignoramus. I live in Maspeth. Besides playing to fears and hate mongering, his campaign literature made claims such as that he should be elected because he coached youth baseball teams and plays whiffle ball with his kids in his backyard. We get what we deserve.
Homeless men masturbating on West 57th Street? That’s an invented “horror” — it’s just as likely as not to happen in Times Square, homeless shelter or not. I’m not afraid of the homeless. Why should they be shunned or ostracized?
3
If the local residents are uniformly opposed to the use of the hotel as a shelter, then let them pool their funds and buy it from the current owner. Then they could exercise complete control over its use.
Unless they are willing to put their money where their mouths are, they are just noise in the wind.
1
Unfortunately, the city is paying SUCH RIDICULOUS LY EXORBITANT rent for this building, that it would be extremely difficult to make it worth the owner’s while to sell!!!
2
I believe the resident's of the area are over reacting. This looks like a small building for NYC so how many people would live there? This is one of those issues where your dammed if you do and dammed if you don't.
1
The United States is doing a terrific job of committing national suicide. After you get rid of all the men, what then. We already have minus birth rate, and the child that are born are more and more screwed up mentally and physically. The choke points for international shipping are being stolen by the Chinese, the cost of living now requires three incomes in order to be of survival rating for a family (not that there are any truly defined families anymore). Clothing that looks like it was taken from a dumpster is selling for huge prices. And the military is short on manpower and equipment in working condition. Give me a few more seconds and space, and I'll give you reasons why the U.S. has no more than five more years as an independent nation. Great job America, you're really getting good at self-destruction and at doing stupid things. So who needs men anyway?
1
What's it going to take for the general population to realize that we all have to pitch in and work together to make our communities work? How so many think they can avoid dealing with Homelessness points up how clueless they are. But it is the same all around. No one wants to step up and take responsibility. Hell most won't even give up a dollar when what we need is to turn attitudes towards taxes around. Americans want a lot without paying for it.
Especially the "entitled" poor. Always looking for a handout with giving back
3
The vast majority of tax funding for everything NYC pays for (including shelters) comes from the high-income areas of Manhattan. Wealthy New Yorkers pay for most of what the city spends.
So why on earth would you do things to make those areas of the city less comfortable for the people who pay for everything that New Yorkers get? The more homeless in a neighborhood and the accompanying quality-of-life issues (pissing on the sidewalk, leaving trash, panhandling etc), the more likely those people who pay for everything will choose to move away.
Why bite the hand that feeds you? There are plenty of other neighborhoods that make more sense for shelters. The city just doesnt get it.
8
Nobody likes to see desperation, much less experience it, but it can’t always be somebody else's problem to solve somewhere else. The homeless may not have money, but those that pile it on by making them feel unwanted don’t have a heart.
7
Any article that starts with accusing people of being racist is an immediate red flag. I know it’s going to be about a group of people who don’t want to do something that someone else has decreed they should do. It’s too easy to just throw the word “racist” at anyone who has a different view than you.
I understand that the laws in NY require housing people, but shouldn’t the housing be near jobs? Or, for people that have encountered a hardship, can’t we just give them money to get back on their feet? Seems to me it’d be better for them and cheaper to give them $10,000 or $20,000 once and give them a chance? Of course, that doesn’t solve the issue of people unable to work due to addiction or poor mental health, but housing them in a shelter solves nothing but a bed for a night.
8
Posting crime data for shelters is a great idea. Let's expand that to every residence -- including the homes of the NIMBYs. That doctor who performs unnecessary operations to fund his vacation home? The lawyer who cheats on her taxes? The father who's been dragged to court to pay support for the children he sired? His neighbor, whose wife has been to the emergency room three times this year because she "ran into a door" and blackened her own eye? The banker who gets into his car and drives down pedestrian-clogged city streets after three stiff drinks? Yes! Let's post the information right on their front doors, so the rest of the neighborhood can see exactly how superior they are to god's unfortunates.
8
I’m writing and commenting as someone who lives with a family on West 58th Street. As residents, parents, property owners and tax payers we all want to help the homeless. The City is trying to pay through a contract with Westhab (who has no experience running shelters in Manhattan) an exorbitant cost of $50,000 per person per year (more than the starting salary of an NYPD officer). That’s 38% more than an average shelter location for a total excessive expense of $18 million. With an extra $18 million many more homeless could be helped if placed in a less expensive location.
We are kind, working class families. I’ve done numerous Habitat for Humanity global builds providing affordable housing and you don’t solve a housing problem and help the most people by placing a shelter in an expensive location. The Mayor is trying to spend over $8,000 per hotel room per month (two men per room). The city could provide permanent housing at a lower cost per month. They could use the money saved to help more homeless, provide more funding for our school district (which has horrible ratings) or provide more funding to other public services like the NYPD and NYFD.
There was no democratic process. There was no community board approval process, no environmental study like every other project is required to undergo in the city. The landlord of the Park Savoy and Westhab are trying to profit off the homeless. We deserve a voice for what is approved within our community.
13
The sheer stupidity of this idea makes my blood boil. This is easily on of the most expensive zip-codes in america, with astronomical real estate prices where most hard working people would never be able to afford to live. Placing a homeless shelter in the middle of it is a BAD idea all around, from the financial, social and moral standpoints. There are plenty of dilapidated sites in the city where land and buildings can be had for a fraction of the price. Why not build there, and provide 3x the capacity for the homeless? Do they NEED to have Central Park views? What else, breakfast in bed and car service?
48
…42 For I was hungry and you gave Me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave Me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, I was naked and you did not clothe Me, I was sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’ 44 And they too will reply, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’…45 Then the King will answer, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for Me.’…
4
It's "shameful" that this editorial, like many before it, frames the debate in a racial subtext.
8
I agree that this is incredibly shameful. Would these people rather see the homeless living on the streets? Having a stable place to live is one of the first steps to (re)becoming a productive member of society.
I understand where their safety concerns are from; hopefully the city will at least screen for those who are mentally unstable.
4
Ah! The "coastal elite", the bastions of tolerance and liberalism who are saving the rest of the country from destruction are at it again. What hypocrisy.
7
So let me get this straight... they now get unlimited free use of any Starbucks bathroom and a free apartment a block a way from Central Park? Why even bother trying to get a job. Has anyone told Bill Ackman who's moving into his neighborhood?
7
Mahattan Borough went about 86% for Hillary (abc7ny). Queens went 75% for Hillary. Staten Island went 57% for Trump and appears to have about a dozen Project Hospitality shelters serving various segments: women w/children, men, HIV/AIDS sufferers. etc.
4
Would sentiment about the midtown shelter be different if the proposal was to house women there?
Well! Not a decent story for in the Times.
I can't speak to Maspeth, but the opponents of the Park Savoy seem designed to evoke little sympathy. But allow me to discuss why Rockaway residents oppose doubling the number of homeless people in our community.
Since the 1950s, under the leadership of Robert Moses, the city has been dumping on us.
The Rockaways how has the highest percentage vs. other Queens Community Boards of negative factors. Nursing home beds. People in health related facilities. NYCHA projects. Low school scores. Low income and downright poverty. Few jobs, Few services. Rotten transportation. You name it. Call the Community Board for more stats.
And our councilman has worked diligently to house the homeless. He has arranged to destroy the downtown Far Rockaway shopping area and replace it with some 5,500 subsidized apartments. And there are plans afoot to build some 2,200 additional subsidized apartments on the Peninsula Hospital site.
Now the homeless certainly need a place to live. But should another disadvantaged group be placed here, in the Rockaways? The city recently informed us that they want to double the number of homeless in the Rockaways.
If the mayor wanted to help, he would take the third of a Billion dollars that he's going to spend on streets and use the money to start building QueensRail so Rockaway residents had better access to jobs and services in midtown Manhattan and central Queens.
25
This is a perfectly ugly illustration of the NIMBY mindset that is rampant in this country from coast to coast: the ignorant, hateful, casually dehumanizing assertion that elderly, sick, and poor people are "negative factors" for a community.
Here's an idea -move the shelter one street South and two streets East.
2
I think a lot of the opposition from the W. 58th Street neighbors is racially motivated. Covertly racist rather than overtly racist like Maspeth. The Mayor should stand up for what's right.
The community opposition is just plain ugly.
2
Wrong! There are plenty of white homeless men around. It is the element they bring that we are against. Begging, drugs, public urination, etc. it ruins decent neighborhoods
5
The nicer you make it, the more you will have. Be glad your weather is worse than southern California. Maybe there is no answer.
2
The "slick website" mentioned in the article is worth looking at for anyone trying to make sense of this issue. It seems very direct and informative and raises valid questions this sanctimonious article does not fairly address.
9
58th street? really?
2
Manhattan hotels have some of the highest rates in the country. Manhattan rents are some of the highest in the country. Manhattan real estate prices border on obscene.
Midtown hotels like the Plaza and Waldorf Astoria have converted to condo/hotel hybrids. NY Landlords allow apartments to sit empty for years waiting for that last rent controlled or stabilized tenant to move out or die so he can tear down the building and erect a luxury building and sell $20,000,000 condos to billionaires.
But the owner of the Savoy on W 58 sees the only viable way to use his asset is to rent it to the city as a homeless shelter? Every building owner has figured out how to make himself fabulously wealthy. The owner of the Savoy can only see himself as a landlord to the city?
New York city pays up to $600 a night - $400,000 a week - to house homeless in hotels. (www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034092/amp/New-York-City-putting-homel....
For Komrad Wilhelm money is no object. Heck, he found $850,000,000 spare taxpayer dollars lying around to fund (another) pet project, a mental health program, for his unqualified wife to run. That she has no executive, management or healthcare experience is irrelevant. His goal is to stick it to the man at every turn. The man being anyone he decides has any kind of "privilege". That means race and class.
Follow the money to the Bum Hilton. Someone is getting rich.
7
How many of the West 58th Street Coalition voted for Hilary Clinton? How many deplore Trump's immigration policies and react with horror when he calls immigrants 'animals'? How many say 'show me the facts' when Trump intimates that immigrants are bringing in untold amounts of drugs and join violent gangs? Most, I imagine.
But how many of these same people question the horror stories frequently floated about homeless people? Few, I think. For what matters most to these people, I suspect, is their property values; all else is a smokescreen.
Hypocrites! Hypocrites all.
8
I voted for Trump!
The "animals" he was referring to was MS-13 gangs; he doesn't want illegals (me too) as we have enough low skilled people here.
2
I'm not shocked. The elite snooty upper west side elites who voted 90% for Hillary and champion themselves proud progressives are glad to say not in my neighborhood! If minorities want to change their babies' dirty diapers, or clean their bathrooms, or mow their lawns, they are glad to have them. The hypocrisy is palpable.
6
How bout Trump Tower? Donald is sticking it to taxpayers for 3 million a pop to golf in Florida all the time- he can give back with some low income housing.
5
How quaint that the NYT thinks rich manhattanites should put up with a shelter. Their idea of low class living is a million dollar pied a terre. NY has become a city for the rich and I am sure they'd love to kick the middle class out too...
4
First, we all should have our Human Rights which guarantees decent, reasonable housing, food, clothes, medical care and education. That is the basics. That is World Law.
Second, since we all do not have that yet, probably the next route for fair housing, will be, something like "not letting the teenagers go to the music concert, until they have completed their homework". So, people cannot live where they live, unless a certain percentage of that space in the neighborhood, is devoted to "fair housing". That would include even the most expensive land areas. Thus, a certain amount of space per square mile.
1
STOP criminalizing people who are on the receiving end of massive inequality - both the homeless people who either can't find decent paying jobs to support a home, have drug habits or have mental illness AND the NYC families trying to keep their blocks safe.
START funding solutions to the problem that comes from a city of ridiculously wealthy people at the top of the income scale refusing to pay their workers a living wage while they purchase second and third homes for tens of millions of dollars.
TAX apartment sales of $5 million and up and TAX those properties annually to pay for comprehensive medical care, housing, mental health care, drug rehab, daycare services and job training services for homeless people AND develop mixed population housing that does not overburden any one neighborhood with drug seekers, panhandlers, and violent crime.
This is NOT a DeBlasio problem - it's NOT a middle-class problem - it's NOT a homeless people-are-bad problem. This is a scourge endemic to our society that we pay CEOs 300 times what a line worker makes compared to 30 times 30 years ago. This is a scourge endemic to our society that oligarchs buy apartments for tens of millions of dollars and real estate developers build luxury apartment buildings without having ANY social responsibility. We can't park this problem on middle-class doorsteps. We need to park the problem at the doorstep of the people who must pay the bill for the income havoc they have wrought.
34
Sophie--I would imagine that getting to and from various shelters is why there needs to be at least one, and probably more, shelters in EVERY borough, rich or not. And while we're on the subject, this country needs to do so much more for the under served homeless, and other vulnerable people, families, children. The rich could solve the problem, if they care at all to do so, throughout the country, throughout the world. In general, they are disinclined. So much for the "moral rot," mentioned elsewhere, in today's edition.
1
If you need the public charity of living in a homeless men’s shelter you don’t get to live on West 58th Street. How about providing space in poor areas near labor intensive factory-type jobs. These homeless men don’t need to live near the financial epicenter of the world.
5
These neighborhood reactions are akin to keeping the lepers outside the city walls in Jesus' time. And some of the midtown wealth fighting the shelter was likely earned at the expense of these now homeless men, rendered unemployed by "rightsizing" in the name of bigger profits, bigger bonuses for the elite few. No matter how much we amass in this life, we will all eventually meet the same fate. Some compassion, please.
4
NYC is running homeless shelter for men in Midtown Manhattan at the cost of 50,000 USD per person per year.
WOW.
There are millions on hungry children in the world. We can feed a lot of them with that money instead of burning it up on a few token people.
Does these 'compassionate' people have any idea of the value of money?
7
An excellent post
1
Perhaps the penalty for illegal AirBnb rentals should be the conversion of those spaces to homeless accommodations
4
Homelessness in the land of the salt mines? Liberals are quaint. I don't think Liberals understand society these days. Working Americans HATE poor people.
Liberals conveniently neglect the reality that Trump voters HATE the poor, probably almost as much as Liberals.
2
Worried about their kids getting "punched in the face?" Or worried about their property values? They're social progressives until it becomes a NIMBY issue. See the show ADMISSIONS at Lincoln Center Theater. Nails liberal hypocrisy brilliantly.
4
Prejudice is defined as a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
How many of those poor sad people (the 'tenants and homeowners, not the homeless) have ever actually been attacked or harmed by either a mentally ill person or homeless person?
I visited the website ("Our Campaign") of those protesting the shelter - it's not that different than websites by Neo-Nazi groups and the like. Both groups justify their actions by generalizing and using fear mongering. Both groups grudgingly accept "others" but just so long as they aren't in their neighbourhoods. Both seem to want the return of segregation, 'Let's keep them and their kind, together in their own place; away from us and our group.'
In this case, these "fine folks" state: "homeless men have much higher rates of serious mental illness". Perhaps - but so what? As if mental illness equates with danger - it doesn't. As if
homelessness equates with violence - It doesn't. Have their been violent homeless men and violent mentally ill people? Yes, of course - but it's the exception not the rule.
Prejudice and discrimination are never good, are never right - no matter the form it takes. And fear, frequently unfounded fear, is always at the root of it. Seems to me the US has gotten ever more fearful since 2016. To quote another fear monger - "Sad. Very sad."
5
Why isn't eminent domain an option at the extreme end of the spectrum? Is it legally no longer viable? Or is shied away from because it's unpopular with the real estate profiteers?
Does anyone else find it odd that people like Mara Gay, who presumably want to help the homeless, almost always lead with a criticism of those who don't?
Consider an alternative approach - why doesn't Ms. Gay instead devote a column to how she's helping, how she's opening her home, how she and her neighbors are helping the homeless? Wouldn't such behavior serve as a good example for those who are skeptical? Wouldn't this be a more inspiring, and less off-putting approach?
That she and her fellow "advocates" don't take this approach is a sign of one of two things to me. Neither are very good.
The first and more benign sign is that perhaps Ms. Gay and her fellow advocates are so lacking in personal compassion, persuasion, and creative thinking skills that this alternative approach doesn't even occur to them. In which case, why should we entertain the notion that she's in a position to advocate for, help, or even understand what she's talking about? And for the others like her, maybe this is why the homeless problem is as bad as it is; they're being assisted by mental midgets!
The second sign is that Ms. Gay and others like her would never lead with ideas for how they can or are personally helping, because they actually have no intention of doing so. They lead with criticism of others, because culture war is their business and their motivation. Present them with the prospect of personal sacrifice, and their tune changes immediately. In short, they're hypocrites.
9
This is the best comment I have seen here for a looong time. Want to help homeless or children from Guatemala? Open your doors to them. Let them live in your house. Feed them. Pay for their rehabilitation. Then we will talk.
Well titled: "Gimmie..." This "homeless crisis" is an urban myth, a useful hoax. The world hasn't changed so much in twenty or thirty years to account for so many people wandering around "homeless." If anything, things have gotten better, economically, in the past ten years, not worse. What has gotten worse is this, "Everybody needs rescued" thinking that has resulted in, for example, people "wanting" to live in expensive locations but who don't have the cash - which magically becomes a "need" for these people to be supported by others... The NY law requiring the city to provide housing was and is a horror - there's no end to what "the city" and "the government" will be on the hook for so long as everyone who claims such "rights" are free of any "duty" to not abuse drugs, not skip their meds, not get along with their family, etc. Come up was a "sad story" and get on the slipply-slide of poverty where being "poor" is your job. Seriously, try making a living standing in lines - even for handouts. Time is time. All time costs you something... Invest your time wisely... Or, not. Just invest in "getting by..." And, that's all you'll do - get by. My family experienced two depressions, not one, in living memory and they moved, worked, hurt, sacrificed, cried, and did more than survive - and never on the streets... No, in a ditch - and worse. They were humbled by the help they got, and grew to help others in turn. But, you can't help those who only think and say, "Gimme, gimme..."
10
Right on!
2
No to the men's homeless shelter in West 58th Street. The city has lied and said these men have ties to the community, but what homeless men have ties to midtown Manhattan??
And, these shelters bring crime, drugs, and dirt. They are a detriment to any neighborhood and I wonder how many are NOT from NYC, but just want our benefits.
8
Ms. Silverstein, the mayor is trying to make an example of you, and he should. Why not try to have a little compassion and stop seeing this as someone "sticking it to you"? The people who are truly "stuck" are the ones who are forced into homelessness because of the rapidly growing disparity between the haves, like those of us with enough income to live in midtown Manhattan and the have nots in this city. I live in the 60s and welcome the shelter. I'd rather have human beings housed comfortably in our neighborhood than unsafe on our streets and subways.
6
A home full of people who are struggling in an established neighborhood is difficult. Will there be support services for the individuals? If they are mentally challenged, will they get good, consistent medical help? Washington is making all this very hard!
Although some might say "Not in my neighborhood" the disenfranchised, sick, addicted, blurry-eyed, wronged, discriminated against are, already, living in their neighborhood, so probably housing is better? And once there is a structure, there must be support services. The taxpayers need to know that we are paying anyway. We are paying in hospital bills, ambulance bills, fire fighting bills, police pensions, sewage issues, etc.
Take to Berkeley, California. Less than a mile from my house is a tent community of approximately 500 individuals who have no sanitation services. Is this the United States? I keep seeing images of the places I have traveled, where there is less democracy and less money.
Wake up.
Housing for individuals is the first step. But what Chicago and New York City learned is that housing the down and out needs to be done carefully.
Be careful. No one wants a falling apart building in their house, nor crazy people walking the streets.
3
Speaking from the homeless capital of the US, it is remarkable to me how short sighted our “leaders” are. Simply throwing housing at a population that largely cannot and will not care for themselves is ludicrous. No one should be permitted to sleep in tents or otherwise on our streets. Period. They should be redirected (call it whatever you want) to a temporary shelter and if they don’t want to stay there, a secure facility that will hold them until they are provided with the counseling and care that they need. It is silly to think that if you hide the problem behind temporary shelters it will go away. There is something fundamentally wrong with a society that generates so many homeless. Whatever has been tried doesn’t work. We need to start from scratch and come up with better ideas.
3
I remember my last trip to Washington DC with the family. We had a hotel downtown and went to a restaurant 5 blocks from the hotel. Decided to walk on a nice day and not take a taxi. A nice pleasant walk except for the block with the homeless shelter. Of course i have been taught not to judge and its not going to be a problem so i am not going to cross the street. Well that was a bad idea. A group of men drinking and smoking weed sitting all over the sidewalk. As i was maneuvering around everyone sitting on milk crates in the middle of the sidewalk one person said "Do you know what we do to young girls around here" as my 12 year old daughter walked by. Then as my other daughter who was lagging behind caught up the same someone else said "ohhh look another one" like it was his lucky day. We took a cab back. This is not a good idea in a tourist area. No one on vacation wants some drunk and high person making lewd comments to their preteen daughters. Next time maybe i will just go to Disney. This reminds me of back in the 80s when my father knew which blocks to avoid in midtown since they had the homeless hotels on them. They were closed in the early 90s because they were a bad idea then and a bad idea now. Google homeless hotels NYC 1980's there are lots of newspaper articles saying how bad they were.
4
Hate to say this, but..no one in their right mind wants to live next door to or near a homeless shelter. That is just a simple fact of life for reasons that should be obvious. The blame here is on the courts whose decisions have made cities like New York a draw for the homeless by entitling anyone who gets off the bus to housing.
7
I did live in NYC at one time in the past.
I remember reading that even the homeless did not want to live in a homeless shelter with other homeless people.
They said things like they were afraid they would be stabbed in the middle of the night or all their possession would be taken from them by the time they woke up.
They would rather sleep on the street.
If the poor and destitute felt that way it shouldn't be shocking when other people feel the same and should not feel shameful.
33
I once lived in a building very close to a men's shelter. The back yard of the place actually abutted on the back yard of my building. Sometimes the men would use the back yard, or they might congregate in small groups outside on the sidewalk. The men seemed scrupulous to conduct themselves in a completely inoffensive manner. They were actually good neighbors and compare favorably with other more genteel denizens who were irritants in one way or another. Anyone appalled at the prospect of having homeless shelters sited nearby should pause to consider their experiences with more conventional neighbors.
3
My SRO building has been transformed into a shelter three times. Between the shelter times the majority of its rooms sit vacant except for the few dozen permanent residents who have lived here for decades. My fellow artist friends often asked if there were any rooms available for them and I told them the city pays a multiple of the legal stabilized rent thus utterly destroying the market for what had been the backbone of affordable housing for near a century.
Single Room Occupancy buildings are poorly designed for challenged populations. Since we share bathrooms and kitchens and really tight railroad halls and common spaces it requires real maturity and mental balance to be a neighbor here. I will say most of the homeless veterans and at one point couples were very mature and appreciative and I would be happy to have them as permanent neighbors but the system can be dangerously slow in responding to the violent and sometimes predatory clients as they are called.
How many stabbings took place in the author's building last year? How often do the police come? Weekly? Daily? Several times a day every day? I work hard to pay my rent and along with many of my fellow permanent residents have endured threats, harassment and theft. Our current management Harlem United and Bailey House is by far the best vendor we have had so far. But I've seen vendors attending the homeless population come and go.
5
Seattle also has a significant homeless problem for all of the same reasons as New York City. In my neighborhood a vacant parking lot was converted to a small village if mini-homes for single homeless men. It certainly is not a good long term solution but for the moment fills the need. It is staffed by an onsite manger and after a couple if years it has posed no problems in spite of Nimby protests. We need to remember that these homeless people are our brothers and sisters not some plague of parasites.
In a shout out to Ms. Silverstein and her West 58th Street Coalition, i wonder how many of her neighbors are Wall Street Bankers and Brokers who nearly brought down the world's economy and hurt millions of people in their quest to get ahead.
4
Well, as a frequent visitor to Manhattan I wouldn't mind heaving up in free housing on 58th and living there permanently. Block from Central Park where I could continue my trots, close to Carnegie Hall, really close, near to Symphony Hall. All good. And free. Less than a hundred feet from where the Russians live in a tall spire. Ah, but I would be closer to Petrossian. Where, living rent free, I could occasionally dine.
9
I think they the city should just open the shelters according to the city needs, without input from communities. The staggering income inequality in this city has people turning their back on their fellow human beings. That needs to stop.
7
The problem is not with sheltering the homeless, it's with warehousing and forgetting about them. The DeBlasio administration seems no different than its predecessors- do a quick Google search on "notorious NYC homeless shelters" and see what comes up. Unless the city is planning to provide an array of services to these people as well as a room, the local residents, EMTs and Police will be the ones dealing with the consequences.
2
The stigma around homelessness (especially that toward homeless men) is unconscionable. The VAST majority of homeless people are law-abiding and compassionate citizens. Homeless people are people too, and they deserve the same respect and dignity as any man or woman of ANY socioeconomic status.
Community concerns about safety and security can be met, and compromises can be made that satisfy the needs of all parties. If residents are hesitant, then so be it. But at the end of the day, we all must be sure we are fighting for reasons untainted by bias, ignorance, or bigotry.
10
There are some things inaccuracies that should be considered as it pertains to particular neighborhoods.
Crown Heights has fought the men’s’ shelter because as a neighborhood it has received for city housing initiatives than any other in Brooklyn in recent history.
Prospect Heights did not shrug concerning the women’s’ shelter. It has picked its battles. It fought (sued) the Pacific Yards housing developments (that are still not occupied because no one can afford them). And now, Stringer is looking to rezone empty HPD buildings for developing sky rise low income housing. The neighborhood will likely fight this as it like crown heights has received a disproportionate number of these housing initiatives.
There should be a simple mathematical density calculation for distribution of units throughout the 5 boroughs. And, local residents should have NO say.
3
Are you really suggesting that Americans should have NO say on matters that affect their immediate community? Simple mathematical formulas alone cannot solve complex social problems.
1
Yes I do. Because, we have no social contract in this country. And, the five boroughs are not suburbia. Community function to do various goods but they are not above City Planning. Equal distribution is best. Otherwise you further an imbalanced system where a few owners monopolize their property values. But, then again, a few homeless people don’t bother me. Post 9/11, we have more armed police officers in this city than at any time in history. 63,000 homeless / 40,000 active officers. Not going to panic.
2
I am a white male in my 40's with 3 college degrees and had been earning up to $100,000 in annual salary when that company's angel investors simply decided it would no longer pay for the company anymore. I have been more or less unemployed since. I have been struggling to get similar jobs with significant cuts in salary for a very long time now, but cannot land the job - typically because I am not a good "culture fit" or overqualified - i.e. too old. Even in the last few months, as I attempt to land entry level p/t jobs that require no more than a high school degree I still cannot land a job. Why? Honestly, I don't understand. In another couple month the odds are that I simply will be homeless and require civil services for assistance. The fact that our precious liberal community in NYC would happily embrace a homeless shelter of women rather than men disheartens me even further. Fine, NYC, I will retreat in your subways and die. I hope you and your kids enjoy it when you find my body.
15
I am so sorry you are struggling so. I can very much relate to the ageism and rejection you face right now, as I have gone through it myself. I wish I was an employer. I am lucky enough to have a good job right now, but I struggled for three years to get it back after having left it to care for my Mom, who was battling cancer in Ohio.
America has become quite callous as regards those who are not getting hired, and I honestly don't know what a person is supposed to do who is trying every day to get hired and isn't. It is shameful that the powerful leaders in our corporate community and government do so little to address this very real problem.
Another American tragedy, playing out every day for far too many good, qualified people who simply can't get hired, for whatever reason. It's disgraceful, really.
3
I am sorry for your plight, and wish you the best. The story is the same across the country. People who are 40-ish and above become invisible and unemployable, despite valiant efforts to find work. To top it off, they're blamed for their own travails. The American dream is great if you can navigate the very narrow path to success. If not, you are cast aside.
3
Good luck to you. Hope a good paying job comes your way. Age discrimination is alive and well
3
The reasonable middle ground is to open the shelter but provide adequate additional security so that there is no uptick in criminal activity. The problem is it's unclear how to practically provide that type of security, which the community reasonably seeks. While cameras would help that is most useful after the commission of a crime. Moreover, you can't require the men to stay inside the shelter all day because it is not a jail and some residents have jobs. A personal escort for each resident when he steps outside is impractical for financial and other reasons.
So the question is what are the practical and lawful measures that the City can take to prevent additional criminal activity in and around any men's shelter?
1
Facing an epidemic homeless crisis, along with the fact that some 50% of NYC's homeless population identifies as LGBTQ, having fled abusive families, these New Yorkers should be ashamed of themselves. History will not treat them kindly. While I am fortunate now to have a modest studio apartment, living in central Warsaw (moving abroad is not an option for many), and I am 'educated', in my teens and twenties I was homeless several times, including while working two jobs and going to college after my family disowned me because I am gay. Shame on those who are against shelter for the homeless. Long term solutions like low and no cost housing, universal health insurance and universal basic income are necessary, and shelters are not the ultimate answer, but they are necessary.
8
Whether or not the homeless are gay has no bearing on the moral urgency to provide them with shelter. Also, you refer to the need for "low and no cost housing." Housing on 58th Street in Manhattan is not low cost housing. It may be low or no cost to the homeless who stay there, but there is a huge opportunity cost that should be considered. This building is worth tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars. Do you think this is a good use of so much value? Couldn't the homeless be better served by selling the building and using that money differently? To put it another way, if the city had $100 million to invest towards helping the homeless, would it be good idea to put all that money towards one building in the most expensive part of the city? What about buying a building in the most expensive part of Nowy Swiat and putting a homeless shelter there? I'm sure the homeless could be much better served.
10
There's more to life than revenue maximization.
Your statement is absolutely a non-sequitur ThadeusNYC. The property is available, ready to be used as a shelter, then let's use it. The main reason people are fighting this isn't because of the property's value, which could be used to 'invest towards helping the homeless' (perhaps putting them near the border with Canada, very, very far upstate, right?), but rather that people of all classes have the right to live in areas that have been heavily gentrified. These whining middle class New Yorkers probably wouldn't have stepped foot in their own neighborhood circa 1970. Now, after the affluent invasion, which displaced the poor, the yuppie class wants to close the border. Trumpism if I have ever seen it.
This building on 58th Street must be worth tens of millions, if not several hundred million dollars. Couldn't the city's homeless be better served by selling the building and spending the proceeds more efficiently/effectively?
17
The City is paying approximately $4,500/month per resident at this site. Most rooms will be double-occupancy; some will be triple-occupancy. All are small hotel rooms with twin beds, dresser and bath. Eating is in communal commissary. Other than employment counseling, no services are provided. For two-person rooms, that's $9,000/month. Even in this neighborhood, one could rent a 2-bedroom apartment with a kitchen for a lot less than what the City is spending.
9
Upstate sounds like a good idea, think of what that money could buy. No put them in one of THE most expensive cities in the country.
1
This a scene that plays out across the country, people deplore homelessness except when it comes to actually putting them someplace, then its "Not in my neighborhood!"
The problem is that habits picked up on the street make the homeless difficult neighbors at best. Homelessness has to be treated holistically. Putting a roof over someone's head does not end the problem. Unless the person is reculturized they have no hope of getting out of the cycle of homelessness. We have to deal with the issues that made them homeless in the first place in order to keep it from happening again. We also must realize that this is a process and it occurs over time, there are no magic wands.
This is a problem that can be solved, we know how to do this. We, as a society, have chosen to put our resources somewhere else. We apparently would rather kill people thousands of miles away then help those in need here at home. When that attitude changes, homelessness will end.
14
What this article overlooks is the use of private non-profit homeless organizations (i.e. BRC) which are getting $millions from the federal, state and city coffers to offer just stop gap measures to confront homelessness. Most of the directors of these homeless organizations talk down the NIMBY local residents while they themselves live far away in protected suburb enclaves. Muzzy Rosenblatt, director of BRC lives in Forest Hills and sends his kids to private school - far away from his HQ in West 25th street.
There is no logical reason to take prime midtown property for homeless shelters, while the only solution to this national problem is permanent, low-income rental housing. Dumping 100s of homeless in a residential neighborhood will only create more crime and hardship.
The majority of homeless need psychiatric care, and many self-medicate with illegal drugs. When the homeless come to these shelters for an evening, many are sent away who then just roam the streets. Just visit West 25th Street block of BRC HQ to understand what this does.
Warehousing the homeless in these mega shelters is wrong from all angles, but it is a quick fix for politicians. Try to find a council member or director of DHS whose home is next to a shelter. That says it all...
32
Why stop at 58th street? Why not build a homeless shelter in Versailles?
15
Not located close enough to "essential services."
Not to mention the French might object to people moving onto their property to build stuff...
Oh, wait, isn't that what the "tent people" are doing all over the United States on sidewalks and in parks?
"Hey, France, lighten up! You don't need green spaces to rest your eyeballs, read in peace, or, eat lunch in the sunshine without being pestered. And, what's with charging for daily tickets to pay for the upkeep on the space? It's nature!"
Jerks. Like the French public has any rights.
Equality means everyone has to have little or nothing - or, it's not "fair"!
Build shelters upstate where there is plenty of land, and set up useful communities for the homeless. Weed out the mentally ill and treat them instead of dumping them on the city streets. Strengthen rent control so landlords can't charge obscenely high rents that create homelessness. Landlords can still make a hefty profit without charging $2,500 a month for a one bedroom.
12
You're going to find NIMBY is not strictly an urban sentiment. Ppl "upstate" would likely resent this as an imposition and would fight it ferociously. Try also to keep in mind that "upstate" has their own poverty problems, and per capita has arguably much harder time w low income population than midtown Manhattan.
Having said that, I think getting the homeless out of midtown is not a bad idea, but my guess is the homeless folks would fight this to the bitter end. They don't end up in midtown for no reason, and AFAIK there aren't many tourists to pan handle from in the Catskills.
4
why call working class residents shameful? what's shameful is how past and present mayors allowed a billionaire's row in the first place, with foreign money hiding behind LLCs while many of those 9-figure apartments sit vacant and unoccupied and off the tax rolls. So maybe a better location for shelters would be in the billionaire apartments that remain unoccupied by their celebrity or foreign owners, or in buildings like 666 Fifth Avenue where one-third of rental inventory sits vacant and unrented while the owners wait for a billion dollar foreign-money bailout.
How about locating shelters in any investment property that sits vacant for more than six months? It won't solve the neighborhood issues that make tax paying residents fear shelters (which are real: mental illness, petty crime, public voiding, loitering, altercations, etc.). But it sure would lay the problem at the feet of those who take housing inventory out of reach and turn New York into a wasting asset.
65
Off the tax rolls? Hardly.
If rental inventory is vacant then the rents are too high. Private property is just that, private, and not at the whim of others.
11
Then explain why the us Constitution explicitly gives government the right to seize property for any reason at any time? It's called eminent domain.
This. Couldn't agree more.
2
What's going on with all the recent Rolling Stones lyrics/titles being used for stuff like this article, the FBI mission, etc?
2
The welcoming liberals at it again.
Do as I say, and ignore what I do.
19
Yes, Phil Ochs song, Love Me I am a Liberal, comes to mind
And what percentage of NYC Asians are in shelters - vs caring for their families or out working until their e-bike gets impounded..
.....
Why not provide folks with a link to the progressive handbook on this topic...
https://www.laprogressive.com/obvious-homelessness-solutions/
"...San Francisco now spends nearly a quarter of a billion dollars on homelessness each year. That works out to nearly $35,000 per homeless person, given the latest count. The problem is how the money is spent...
"...It is common knowledge among experts and practitioners in the homeless field that supportive housing – permanent housing with social services on-site – is the best approach and is where public money should be focused...
Bloc voters and pamphleteers, patronage jobs painting over crumbling human infrastructure - what's not to like...
.....
How many people in NYC work more than one job - and still take home less than $35,000/year...
Trump has created so many memes - the one that comes to mind here is "progressive pyramid scheme"...
Let's see if he figures out that one on his own...
5
I resent your attempt to drag race into this discussion Ms. Gray. I work in midtown; I walk up & down the aves at lunch. I see an equal number of black, white & other ethnicities living on the street. Poverty is not proprietary to any race, and it's not a cudgel for someone like you, who probably has never seen a day of poverty in her life, to use for lashing out against whites. I say this as a man who spent time as a child raised by a single mom, as she was leaning on food stamps and working multiple jobs too keep food on the table. But that was "white rural poverty", a category that couldn't be further away from your syllabus.
If you're truly interested in helping the poor, I propose you step outside your comfort zone. Take a break from tugging on the white guilt heart strings of midtown Manhattan, and take a trip to Central NY, rural North Carolina or Tennessee, or "coal country". You'll find there are poor people of all different races, colors and creeds. The ones setting up shop in tourist centers of NYC are no more needy or disadvantaged than those outside your neighborhood.
27
All due respect here, we're talking about NYC and very specific sites. So then, what's your point as it relates to this article?
Well said.
1
@sue steinberg, my main point is the first paragraph, allow me to clarify : shaming white people about placement of homeless shelters has no place in this discussion, particularly when one sees w their own two eyes that many midtown homeless ppl are themselves white.
1
"...he’s sticking it to people like myself who work 100 hours a week. We’re not bad people. We’re just trying to get ahead."
And how does a homeless shelter prevent that exactly? The homeless aren't some scourge being foisted upon you as some sort of payback. It's an economic problem needing a solution.
It's not happening *to* you, it's just happening. It's not personal. It's necessary. The city is not yours. It belongs to all its residents including the homeless who deserve to be helped. NYC nimbyism is just the worst.
I'm glad they're going to open it anyway. I hope the hotel doesn't back out.
13
I did not make these people homeless nor should it be MY problem. I don't want a shelter in my neighborhood.
2
Just because people are homeless, it does not follow that they are criminals or bad people. A few bad breaks could make anyone homeless. It seems the neighborhood people are the actual bad people. But, they probably pretend to be Christians on Sundays.
12
But for people who want to work - probably for much less than the value of all the free stuff these folks are getting...
http://gothamist.com/2018/04/26/e-bike_immigants_nypd_nyc.php#photo-1
"...Yang Hai described the patrons of the Upper East Side Chinese restaurant he works for as “people with low incomes, that’s who I deliver to most often,” he says in Mandarin. “The doormen, the security guards, construction workers, nurses, the people that work in this neighborhood...
"...Li Guoan was delivering food on his electric bicycle in Midtown Manhattan on a frigid January afternoon this year when an NYPD officer pulled him over. E-bikes are illegal to ride in New York City, and Li had been stopped by the police before. But this time the officer decided to seize his bike. Li was charged with misdemeanor reckless driving, no different than if he had been behind the wheel of a 4,000-pound SUV...
6
Will someone explain how De Blasio, our "progressive, tale of 2 cities" whiney mayor has any credibility when he gives $1.8 + billion of taxpayer subsidies annually to billionaire developers to provide affordable housing when 87,000 people apply for a couple hundred apartments at Domino Sugar? In what universe do these numbers add up to success?
The New York supporters of De Blasio are like Trump's base support group. Their appetite for dehumanizing lies and tolerance for government billion dollar collusion with gangster developers and their marauding lobbying groups-REBNY-Cuomo-De Blasio- seems bottomless. Increasingly hypnotized by the dull glare of the Amazonian opioid to consume, New Yorkers are normalizing the mirror image of Trumpian greed but call it De Blasio progressiveness.
Row upon row of subway riders staring blanking at their phone screens barely noticing the disappearance of New York sold to the highest bidder. The highest bidder? Real estate developers, Wall Street predatory real estate investors, murderous Oligarchs sheltering their ill gotten gains facilitated by racketeering state and city elected officials and their venal agencies all in the name of "Make New York Great Again." Their urban vision is little more than the monotonous gluttony of corporate lawlessness delivered to your doorstep by drones.
Is there no place untouched by the sickening stain of greed sponsored by diminishing democracy and the destruction of the middle class?
11
I'm not surprised anymore, but it still sickens me that so many people--quoted in the article and responding in these comments--have so little compassion. To judge people quickly based on one thing they lack, a stable home, is disgusting. To lack a home doesn't necessarily make you a victim, a failure, or a folk hero, or mean that you have some moral failing; it's just a fact. One characteristic of many that tell the story of who each person is right now.
6
If you lived here, you would understand, but since you live in Vermont, you probably have never even seen a homeless person.
2
Since when does any bona fide New Yorker care about what a tourist sees ... or not?
Tough luck .....we are a polyglot city
Don’t like it? There’s always Disneyland
7
Spoken like someone who has never given a thought to the hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers who work in the hospitality industry; do you think that when tourists start to see the reality of what West 58th St. will become, rather than your Disneyland version of it, tourism will not be affected (and the jobs it provides). Continue to live in your dreamworld and then tell others to go to Disneyland.
3
Manhattanites should buy bus tickets for the "homeless" to Seattle and San Francisco who welcome the "homeless" with open arms and who are considered as special citizens .
5
Homeless people in San Francisco and the Bay Area are definitely not considered "special citizens," at least not in the way you are apparently using the term. San Francisco, Oakland, and other Bay Area communities have been struggling with how to deal with the ever increasing number of homeless encampments that have been more and more prevalent throughout the area. San Francisco alone spends nearly a quarter of a billion dollars a year on dealing with this situation (so far, with not much success). That's in a city with roughly one-tenth the population of New York City.
1
How about siting the homeless shelters in the neighborhoods the men come from? The poorest areas, like Brownsville. Would they be more welcoming? Why place the toughest cases in the middle of working or upper class family neighborhoods, and then decry the completely rational resistance as shameful and racist? Is there any cultural sensivity on the part of city officials about these neighborhoods, or are they just trying to provoke conflict? Is the author pretending that there is no likelihood of increased crime from this population of men?
15
How many of these homeless come from out of state? Many of them do as they know how liberal the benefits are and how easy is it to apply for them al on the backs of the working class. This is not the NYC that I remember growing up.
15
There but for the grace of God, I go.
What does it matter if they came from out of state and now are NY residents, albeit ones without a permanent home.
Having done outreach work with individual experiencing homelessness, there are many reasons one finds themselves homeless. Many homeless individuals do have jobs but do not make enough to afford rent in many cities. Moving to a different city means leaving behind the job and services one may receive. If you already lack a safety net, this isn't a viable option.
1
The problem is that homeless for whatever reason, out of work etc come to THE most expensive city to beg and take advantage of the benefits and services that are available to them. That's the point. Someone who is homeless from PA should not come to NYC to do the same. Got it?
1
Welcome to the new, brutal America.
A civil war is in the making.
7
For anyone already made five deliveries on an e-bike, is stuck on a slow-moving or stopped subway or crowded platform, who'll go home to an unsubsidized edge-avenue walkup...
You can't call NIMBY - none of you have back yards...
So - NIMATEC...
Not In My Already Too Expensive City...
For anyone who thinks that these folks should simply move out of town – hold that thought…
For anyone who thinks suppressing posts like this is somehow an affirmative action – you're the very personification of progressive thinking, to a lot of folks...
And - we can’t go away...
You’ll just take more of our stuff away, while we’re out of the room…
3
Mean and stupid.
I'm proud that my son helped lead an effort by an organization called Attention Homes to build apartments for homeless young adults in Boulder, CO, in one of the city's oldest, wealthiest neighborhoods. The well-organized resistance lost. Attention Homes made a compelling case based on compassion, economics and common sense. It will transform lives and the neighborhood - in good ways. Some residents worried that it would affect property values. Property values are not "values."
There's more to the worth of a neighborhood than real estate prices.
7
Why is the CHURCH never too helpful when it comes to this issue? Never. Especially minority churches, where there's a church on practically every block. There's plenty of basements and pews available pretty much until Sunday. Churches should be front and center offering their spaces and counseling on the regular for at least temporary shelter. But they don't. And yet many are more than willing to house illegal immigrants. What would Jesus do? Religious hypocrisy is why I left the Christian church behind and spend a lot of time helping people on my own.
5
Exactly. The church near me locks its doors at 5:00 pm
1
Funny I don't see many synagogues or mosques helping either.
2
So much fear of homeless people is based on a minority of bad apples in the bunch (usually drug affected or severely mentally ill). As this article says, many of those requiring shelter are in fact working poor. They just need a helping hand to get back on their feet. If the community just gave a shelter a chance they'd likely find they forget it's even there.
To help residents get comfortable though, the local authorities need to have a clear risk management plan in place so that any issues that do arise, are dealt with promptly and effectively. Part of that means shelters need to be combined with appropriate support programs to treat drug addiction and mental illness. And it's common sense that they shouldn't throw a large group of high risk types together because that's a recipe for disaster.
23
Australians have no business commenting on homeless in NYC. Homeless single men are a huge problem for any NYC neighborhood
1
"They just need a helping hand to get back on their feet."
Ha-ha-ha... That old story... Really?
Just a hand, huh?
Gee, that was so easy!
Oh, wait...
I purchase University Library Privileges Card (nominal fee) for several of my struggling acquaintances. Giving them a chance to read, relax in safe tranquillity, accesss to clean restroom. Micro action but....
1
So let's assume that homeless men have been seen, umm, stimulating themselves in public. If they have more housing opportunities, won't it be more likely that they will be able to carry on that activity in private?
That being said, I'm curious about the accuracy of the statement on the opponents' website that this project is going to cost $60K per resident per year. Is that based on one time startup costs, or is that $60K/resident, year after year? Because even in NYC, that would pay for a year's rent on the private market, somewhere, and leave money over to provide support services.
4
New York State has thousands of vacant housing units in the many smaller cities upstate. Why should the most expensive real estate in the county be used to house the homeless? For the price of a single one-bedroom Manhattan apartment the state could buy 10-15 single family homes upstate! (Yes they can cost under $100,000 per unit!). The purpose is shelter people unable to care for themselves! Why waste money by trying to do this at Manhattan prices? Taxpayers could get so much more for their money upstate, and more homeless would find shelter. Money might even be left over for food and to provide other needed services!
19
Great idea! Warehouse homeless people in communities like mine upstate with extremely high unemployment rates, no public transportation, few social services, and few public places where people can find warmth, shelter and food during the day. This is not a NIMBY argument on my part. We have plenty of our own homeless people up here who we are struggling to help. People who have lost their jobs and can't afford to pay increasing rents in an area that is becoming more enticing to the New York City middle class that can't afford to live there anymore.
11
The New York City Department of Homelessness only has jurisdiction to establish homeless shelters within the City of New York. There was a point in time when the City paid communities in upstate New York to accept homeless people but it had to largely abandon that program in part because the homeless would find their way back to the city and there were no jobs or family members upstate.
5
Great! Lets just ship the entire lower middle class upstate, where there are NO jobs, and then we'll leave Manhattan entirely without a workforce to support the service, construction, and other industries. Genius! Why didn't we think of that??
A large percentage of NYC's homeless are people who were evicted because of temporary financial troubles. Removing them upstate (what are we now, Communist Russia?) is no solution. They need help, not permanent homes in dying rural backwaters (And I say this as someone currently living upstate). And for the homeless who are mentally ill, sending them upstate where there are no support services is even more ridiculous.
3
More banal and unsubstantiated fears from people who just want to be comfortable and close themselves off from the reality of life in America, 2018.
de Blasio is right to do this; however, shelters themselves aren't the most efficient route to fixing homelessness. It'd be better and cheaper for the city to just give these apartments to the homeless outright. The current 80/20 "affordable housing" schemes obviously are not serving those they were intended for.
It's also another reason why we must legalize weed. Colorado used a lot of its marijuana revenue to build permanent housing for homeless people.
I came close to homelessness twice and know 5 people who became homeless for several years. We were all "normal" working people who fell into difficult financial circumstances. This is happening more and more. It could happen to you, so it'd benefit everyone to reconsider their attitudes toward homeless folks.
5
This conflict shows how ignoring gender issues in public policy leads to an undeveloped debate. Housing men vs. housing women vs. housing women and children significantly affects what the possible complications might be. People are not crazy to wonder about the impact of large numbers of men and a higher likelihood of violent or other criminal conduct. The same omission of gender realities also distorts immigration policy formation. It's crazy to pretend this doesn't matter.
13
Listen, I don't think anyone here is advocating that there shouldn't be shelters in Manhattan or that there shouldn't be shelters in Midtown. There are just simply better locations within midtown (or other areas of Manhattan) for them. It has been proven that it will cost taxpayers significantly more to build a shelter here than it will elsewhere in Manhattan. The accommodations will also be smaller and more cramped than they would be at other locations. The city has also ignored multiple stop construction orders and proceeded to build (including without getting the proper permits sometimes), which is funny because if a private developer did that they would be absolutely slammed with large fines from the city.
The shelter's location is simply a political stunt by the Mayor. Since this neighborhood has the unfortunate moniker of "billionaire's row" (although, as a resident who lives two blocks form the proposed site I can tell you I am certainly nowhere close to a billionaire nor do I think I will ever be a millionaire), he can plop a homeless shelter down and be able to say he stuck it to the billionaire's (even though it would make much more sense to put it elsewhere in Midtown or elsewhere in Manhattan).
11
As someone stated earlier why not Upstate where costs are a whole lot cheaper? Let's ask the Mayor if he'd like a couple of shelters next door to Gracie Mansion.
1
What the West 58th Coalition has offered to do, and made a formal proposal for DHS, was to warmly welcome families with children to the Park Savoy. The offer was to build out a playroom, supply a children’s library and offer to support a tutoring program for the children. Unfortunately, this fact was not covered in this editorial. The neighborhood is making efforts to support those most in need, as 70% of those living in homelessness are families.
17
Hurray Keith Powers. The homeless must be housed near jobs. Placing them out of site in remote areas decreases their opportunities and increases the likelihood that they will not be able to overcome homelessness. This wealthy neighborhood can afford to help others and should. NYC is in an extreme housing crises. Where do they think their dog walkers, nannies, housekeepers and handymen will live? Not to mention their teachers, and nurses etc. These wealthy people will have to learn to take care of themselves if they don't open up their communities.
1
I would think that the occupations you mentioned would not be living in a homeless shelter
2
More than 30% of the NYC homeless population are comprised of children. The City wants to open 90 shelters. I assume that means 30 shelters will house children. With open arms, we as a neighborhood are asking the City to bring a Family shelter to house women with young children in this Park Savoy Hotel midtown Manhattan location. Where else are you seeing this action in NYC? The press will pick and choose quotes out of context for a juicy story. Make no mistake, we are SAYING YES to a family shelter for children. If the city continues to say NO then it is clear they are trying to make an example out of this neighborhood so they don’t have to compromise anymore and won’t have another Maspeth or Blissville situation.
The men’s shelter intake process is close to nothing, whereas the families with children have to go through a rigorous 5 year background check to be placed anywhere. We are asking the city to work with the community and put in a family shelter with young children. The Park Savoy is 1 block away from the largest playground within the largest park in the country. The Park Savoy Hotel will have a kitchen serving 3 hot meals a day. This is better than the current situation many family shelters are dealing with whom receive cold boxed lunches.
12
What a biased depiction of the actual circumstances surrounding the development and implementation of this homeless shelter. West 58th street is in the center of one of the most populated, and trafficked, corridors of Manhattan. Without any resident input, the City took unilateral steps to convert this space into a homeless shelter. Further, the City could not even manage to facilitate the shelter with proper oversight, which is why the project is at a stand still. No one denies that these men need a place to sleep. But, the city has a problem with safety in these shelters. That’s the unfortunate truth. Until the city had plan is in place to provide adequate security and protocols, a shelter in the heart of midtown Manhattan is downright irresponsible. Otherwise, the city will likely be opening itself up to a multitude of liabilities.
14
The city, DHS and Bloomberg did exactly the same thing on West 25th STreet when BRC went ahead to set up a 400 bed shelter for homeless with drug and mental illness without any community input. Only after local residents bombarded the community board was there even a meeting with BRC, DHS, etc. The shelter was against state laws on warehousing the homeless. Was against local zoning and was underwritten by shady financing.
The result is the BRC went ahead with this shelter wihtout community board approval. Suicides, crime, sexual harrassment, etc. are now common on WEst 25 street where once young families could walk with their children. No longer.
1
I agree the city does a lousy job of explaining itself. But as someone who has lived for decades in the east village next to multiple shelters, AIDS housing, and Methadone clinics, and as someone who now lives in East Harlem next to numerous more shelters, old and new, and as someone who has and has had a number of college students and graduates who live in shelters, I think you are overly concerned.
10
I use to work near there. That shelter ruined a great neighborhood
The main problem here is De Blasio. He is no fit to lead or manage this city.
13
No, no, you don't understand. The people who live in midtown Manhattan deserve to have an entirely flawless and sterilized existence. They should never have to face any unpleasantness whatsoever, including the sight of poor people. They all work 100 hours a week, you see, for the privilege of avoiding such sights. It's true that there are plenty of other people who also have to work 100 hours a week--full time at a supermarket and 3/4 or full time at a fast food restaurant, say--just to live in squalor anyway. But privileged white people deserve better than that, you see.
And as to their fake fears about crime: if we are going to put cameras on poor people, in case they misbehave themselves, can we please also put cameras and microphones in the offices of wealthy bankers and investors? Remember the damage to the entire planet done by white collar criminals in 2008? That's where we really need to be directing our cameras.
God, these selfish, greedy people disgust me. They have everything, but it's never quite enough, is it.
21
This is an unfair comment. I have no problems with shelters in midtown. But the location of this one is confusing. It's significantly more expensive for taxpayers for the shelter to be placed in this location versus other spots in Manhattan. The rooms will be significantly smaller and more cramped than they could be at other possible sites in Manhattan as well. I will admit that I am not a fan of the possible decline in property value from this shelter, sure, but to me that's kind of a fact of life that I can live with if it makes actual sense for the shelter to go where they want to put it, which it doesn't.
7
Speaking of God - where's the church (there's an abundance of them in minority communities - and not paying taxes I might add) when it comes to this? Empty spaces until Sunday mostly. What would your Jesus do?
5
This shelter is not for midtown. A cup of coffee costs $6.00.
1
I live across the street from a large homeless shelter, and I also volunteer to help the homeless. Mara Gay should stop shaming people, and instead demand that the city better patrol and control the homeless population.
Steven Banks has resisted common sense reforms (e.g. resisting physician oversight of homeless mentally ill, etc), and as a result has increased the amount of dangerous and behavior and threatened the safety of the homeless people he is supposed to protect.
Mara Gay and the NY Times should focus on better patrolling and tracking of the homeless population, instead of merely bashing people who point out the harm of the shelters.
After all, how many homeless shelters are in Monclair, NJ?
31
Why doesn’t your city build more affordable housing? Even millionaires there appear to live in pretty dreadful little apartments.
7
Mayor de Blasio has made it nearly impossible to build affordable housing. He's retrenched multiple times on the numbers in his promises to create "or preserve" affordable units.
1
Breaking Muse -- Rich people propose shooting homeless people into outer space.
3
They'd get to ride in a Tesla...
1
Don't want homeless people? Pay better wages. Pay higher taxes to build new public housing and fix the old. Provide better mental healthcare. PAY HIGHER TAXES. GET STUFF FIXED.
12
When I got out of the Army I lived in my (very old) car and then rented the back half of a two-car garage to work my way through college. It was a humiliating but motivating time in my life. I still recall washing my dishes with a garden hose in the gutter at night so no-one would see. My father tells me his mother used to regularly welcome a stranger to the dinner table during the Great Depression. My point is, a country can't be both about opportunities for self-advancement and shunning those who haven't made it yet. It's time to choose who we are and what we stand for.
10
I understand your point. But the City of New York is obligated by law (actually a consent decree) to provide shelter to anybody who asks for it. Thus, if people don't want to strike out on their own, the City must provide shelter.
4
Such a ridiculous law. How many homeless are NOT from NYC.
2
Midtown Manhattan has hundreds of thousands of people walking the streets every day, many of them criminals, many of them homeless. Are they really going to notice 140 more?
5
Please don’t name Crown Heights in the same sentence with Maspeth.
The greatest density of shelters in the city is in in Crown Heights and Bed Stuy. The main men intake shelter in the City with 600 beds is in Crown Heights.
These protests had an entirely different background.
5
Crown Heights is bombarded by homeless shelters. I feel bad for the tax paying residents
Let's substitute the groups chronic substance abusers, repeat offenders, large concentration of unmedicated schizophrenics with a higher rate of criminal activities as opposed to women with children down on their luck. Neither description is wholly accurate but to not acknowledge the nature of the homeless population and simply label residents as shameful is irresponsible "journalism"
16
If you’re working 100 hours a week, Ms. Silverstein, you’re not living comfortably.
6
It’s the sense of entitlement that kills me
1
While on a visit to Bradenton,Florida i was deeply saddened to see a tall frail man walking on the pavement,i knew he was homeless.
He may not have any documentation on himself to prove his very existence in US.
He had a sparse collection,his lifetime earning wrapped in an shoddy bag,slung around his stooped shoulder.
He looked as a man from a good family.Maybe Midwestern.
Life’s been tough on him.
To which is the callous,cruel & totally unbecoming attitude of the administration of the world’s richest nation.
The homeless are in urgent need of your compassion & care.
They do not have your benefit of luck,destiny,good karma & blessings.
But surely you do have a conscience to help the less fortunate amongst you.
High time US Congress imposes an tax on all imports from China to be used exclusively to rehabilitate the homeless.
Homelessness & Loneliness is very debilitating on the human Soul.
2
A modest suggestion - put the shelter next to the Trump Tower. After all, that neighborhood has already be ruined.
16
where do thery live? where are the homeless expected to be? How can they get out of their plihght unless we help?
My neighborhood has a group home literally 100 yards from our door. you wouldn't know it's there.
Shame shame of the NIMBY ites in this city. Be thankful for what you have. Be grateful You;ll be a lot happier in your lives. Until then,, you will always, always be upset. Too bad.
(Riverdale NY)
5
Why are people having children they cannot afford, resulting in them having to move into homeless shelters, instead of postponing having children and acquiring an education, vocational skills or work experience first?
22
You can't force someone not t have children they claim it is their right. We as taxpayers should demand that as responsible people we refuse t support their multiple children with no father in sight but we can't instead we are the ones who are stigmatized and insulted. Thus the never ending cycle.
9
Let me help--sometimes people lose their jobs *after* they've had kids, Richard. And sometimes people get pregnant accidentally even after using birth control. And sometimes endemic and institutional poverty and mental health issues prevent someone from making decisions in their best interests. C'mon, it's 2018 and you live in a city with ample opportunity to educate yourself on the issues.
5
Funny question...
Life doesn't work that way - a lot of the time... Another question might be, "Why not give up children you can't afford?" Hm.
You can't change the past, but you should think carefully about what you can change about the future...
I live in Crown Heights, have for 10 years now. I live right by the old armory, that huge homeless shelter. The author gives a highly moralized, oversimplified depiction of the problem here. These shelters need to be improved before the city makes more of them. They are riddled with crime--ask the people who refuse to stay there. The shelters have specific hours and the result is homeless men (always men) stay out at night around the shelter. We have had to call the cops several times because they were starting fires in the building next door which is under construction. We have had homeless men congregating *on our stoop*. Every morning I walk to work I have to squeeze my way through a crowd of about 10-20 men just hanging out, drinking and getting high in public, on the corner. They hang out there most of the morning, making noise and harassing people. These incidents have picked up significantly over the last two years. It is absolutely unfair that Crown Heights is being asked to take on more shelters than other areas and residents have every right to feel that way.
People who don't want more subpar homeless shelters opening so that DeBlasio can appear to be doing something about the homeless problem are not heartless and not even necessarily NIMBYs. The shelters themselves are a problem. Fix them first.
63
Haven't you heard it's perfectly OK now to get high in public? The lasses faire de Blasio says so. Quality of life for taxpayers be damned and cow tow t the lowest common denominator.
3
Excellent post!
3
It's easy and tempting - hence often done - to castigate NIMBY.
But most of us WOULD like to NOT have neighbors who make us feel uncomfortable - so much so that this is another instance of de Blasio trying to "do the right thing" when maybe a little thought would tell him it isn't just bad politics - it's bad policy.
For all that people like Ms. Gay, the author of this piece, would like to ascribe homelessness to a severe lack of "affordable housing," the reality is more complex ... and messy. Just as our prisons house more mentally ill and substance abusers these days than they do people who are bona fide criminals - think "debtors prisons" of a bygone era - most homeless people in NY are "damaged." True, it's often not their fault (the kids, say), but nobody would seriously assert that they make ideal - or often even "acceptable" - neighbors. The nub is "What should we do about them?"
Housing them in hotels - even converted hotels - in midtown Manhattan has the worst possible "optics" & math - an out-of-towner would be lucky to snag a $300/night room 10x10 nearby, so any intelligent New Yorker has a sense that "the least of us" will be housed at absurdly high rates ... for years? (Yes, new faces every 30-60 days, but STILL?!)
Surely, it would make more sense to "do a Roosevelt Island" for these people. The cost would be lower, the services could be higher... and the objection that it segregates them is best answered by:
What gives them the best shot to re-integrate?!
9
You have a good point.
I consider myself well off but I could not afford to buy a home in this area.
I feel that the same right these people have should be given to me as well.
That is obviously crazy.
I don't have that right and neither do they.
We only have the right to live in a community where we afford to live in.
The city can not let these people live in the street so they do have to find a place for them.
That place should not be in a place in a area where only the rich can live in because you are then giving these people a choice that people like me someone with some money do not have.
The author's use of the phrase, "mental health issues" says a lot about her knowledge -- and her determined whitewashing -- of the homeless population.
Mental disorders -- they are defined in the DSM-V -- are not "issues." Many of these disorders cannot be "embraced" easily by most of us. Neither should we be expected to be on guard for the disgusting and the deadly that surely will be there when we step outside of our doors.
11
Don’t like cities like NYC?
Too dirty? Too many of‘ those people”
My suggestion : live anywhere else. You are not a citizen , just a tourist long term visiting where others call home
Even those without a permanent roof over their heads
They are not going away.. don’t want to pay taxes to live in a civilized society?
Don’t want to try to solve the problems here in nyc? Malone NY is nice
Stay there please
Malone is not at all nice, Adam.
Manhattan, where I lived for more than half of my 80 years -- and helped solve many of its problems (with Koch's campaign; with the auxiliary police; as a volunteer tutor) -- was and still is nice. But no longer affordable for me.
What are you doing?
We're struggling with a similar problem. The city did a planned decentralization of homeless shelters recently. There was one primary shelter located in a downtown area. The facility was constantly filled beyond capacity. The overflow obviously spilled into the surrounding area and created a self-perpetuating culture of homelessness. The idea was to disburse the homeless population across the city into normal neighborhoods with both shelters and social services. Break the cycle so to speak.
What happens? The wealthiest neighborhood has a hissy fit. They insist their lives and property are endangered. Meanwhile, locating the shelter a few blocks west is no problem for them. Not in my backyard indeed. Guess what? The rich people got what they wanted. That was my personal objection to the program. The burden of responsibility needs to be equitably shared across the entire community. These people basically said "Make it someone else's problem." My neighborhood came out okay. Others weren't so lucky.
1
A Modest Proposal: Gather all 60,000 homeless into one spot, vaccinate them, give them soap and require them to shower, feed them, clothe them (burning all old clothes) and sort them out according to their individual problems (methadone, mental illness, etc). Have schools and babysitters for their children. Require employables to work full-time with professionals established at the site-- on time without fail. Contact their relatives for payments to help defray costs for their upkeep and training. (If the relatives refuse, then send the homeless to the relatives.) If a homeless person does not follow instructions, slowly begin to remove food privileges from them.
6
@ Caroline, a novel idea. Makes sense.
1
Inspired by Jonathan Swift .
This isn't a single issue problem. Emotional screeds like "rich people are bigots" are not helping. The problems are many, and have to be addressed in a comprehensive manner. Let's look at men.
Specifically, "the homeless" aren't a homogeneous group. We had a guy living with us for a few weeks while he found a place. He was homeless, as his toxic girlfriend threw him out. Guy has a good job, kept it, and is no longer homeless. Here in CA, there is nothing to help him other than friends and family.
Neighbor down the street got accused of domestic violence. After two nights in jail and missing work, he's unemployed. being male and automatically guilty, a restraining order made him homeless with no due process. Not unreasonably, he got drunk and slept it off in his car, which saw him back in jail. He'll be dead in 5 years.
School density here means that men on the sex offender registry can't live in something on the order of 88% of the available housing, and being a registered sex offender means that they can't get an apartment anyway. They can't live with family with children.
Those with mental health problems are in even worse shape. Many mental illnesses drive the victim to avoid treatment. Since the ACLU convinced the supreme court that treatment is incarceration, they've been on the streets instead of institutionalized.
These are all very, very different situations and need different approaches.
7
If the residents are workingmen like Ronnie Jones, i.e down on their luck, then the neighborhood won't be affected as much as feared. But put drug addicts and the mentally ill there and there will be backlash.
7
It's wrong to demonize people who don't want a shelter in their neighborhood. Homeless oftentimes have mental health, addiction and other serious issues. How many of you would *truly* welcome a homeless shelter next to your home?
14
Here in the San Francisco the contrast between the huge wealth and extreme poverty can be seen every day like that in NYC.
Its ironic that these self-proclaimed centers of progressives can turn such a blind eye to homelessness.
That people (including myself) can become insensitive to these matters is scary.
3
Seeing so many begging every day for years, yes, it can make us insensitive.
What stigmatizes the homeless population is NYC and Manhattan in particular are not the unfortunate souls who are struggling in a city in which basic needs become ever farther from their reach, but the aggressive, angry, and sometimes threatening mentally ill, sometimes staggering, sometimes lunging at passersby. This portion of the homeless population could include alcoholics, drug addicts, and people who have no help for staying on medications even if they are lucky enough to have access to medications. If you've ever been in a subway car, or on a bus with one of these people then you understand how that stigma can be passed around to include all people on the street who appear destitute. Until society finds some way to help the most unfortunate of the growing population, the homeless with continue to be unwelcomed and met with "not in my neighborhood".
11
The city's efforts to house the homeless is fantastic. I am proud
to be a New Yorker when I hear this. However the city could do a better job by telling us how they plan to transition the homeless to housing they can pay for themselves.
3
Who would actually want a homeless shelter in their neighborhood, especially if they own property? It drives down property values and increases quality of life crimes. Many shelters close or restricted access during the daytime so the homeless end up roaming or camping in the neighborhood all day.
I am all in favor of building shelters or low income rentals, but to stick them in prime neighborhoods does a disservice to those who have worked hard to live there as well as to the homeless since they are very out of place and unlikely to have the ability to afford neighborhood amenities.
6
I'm certain these same people who are objecting would be happy to pay higher taxes for better access to mental health care, low income housing for working city families, or any other proven option to ease the homelessness problem so there wouldn't be as much need for shelters. Right? It's not they're utterly complicit in creating this problem or anything.
5
I live in a high tax state and am in favor of paying more taxes to open mental hospitals and other facilities if results are proven. But what exactly have the billions spent on social programs done since the 1960's? The intent was to provide a helping hand and transition the poor to a better life, yet the result is ongoing generational poverty and the expectation that free housing and support is deserved. Most people are all for providing a safety net or helping hand and funding programs that work, but most end up being out of control and never-ending bureaucracies that demand more and more more money without ever solving problems.
Please let us know what proven options and programs exist to move people from homelessness to self-sufficiency, cure mental illness and addiction issues and move the poor from housing projects to their own homes and being self-sufficient. I'm sure the city of NY and many other cities would love to learn of these proven options since the current ones don't seem to work at all.
6
Instead of a hand up, generational poor want a hand out with no incentive to improve themselves
I am paying very high taxes already. I have worked hard to own my place. I didn't make poor decisions that made others homeless, but I am paying for their poor decisions
Where, pray tell, is this epidemic of homeless men punching three-year-olds in the face? I drove a van on Monday nights as a volunteer for the Coalition for the Homeless. We distributed food and the occasional clothing donation. In one year: zero punches thrown.
I lived next to two-story residential-style public housing in Wicker Park in Chicago (nice neighborhood). Six years: zero punches thrown.
I now live next to an addiction treatment center run by Johns Hopkins. Hundreds of clients pass through each day starting at 6 a.m. One year in: zero punches thrown.
The poor are our brothers and sisters. I was poor once, growing up--really poor. Never punched anybody, either.
6
Perhaps NYC should follow the example of Copenhagen which has a completely independent "city" within its city limits. Freetown Christiana is an area controlled by a Foundation often called "hippie town" which has its own laws (or lack of laws) and also provides space for those who need free housing (they must apply for it). Rather than try to find shelters throughout the five boroughs, maybe the city could find a large area to devote to this purpose using this model.
4
It would never work here. The ACLU would label it a "prison"
The same thing is happening right now all over Southern California. It's insane because the homeless are already in all of those neighborhoods. Wouldn't it be better for the homeless to be housed in a shelter, rather than camped out on your front doorstep? It also makes me angry to hear people invoking their children as a reason not to build shelters. Our children already see homeless people, and unlike adults, who are desensitized to the problem, children generally respond with compassion. We should listen to them.
7
Recently Thomas Edsall wrote in these pages: "Allies on Election Day, the two wings of the Democratic Party are growing further estranged in other aspects of their lives, driven apart by the movement of advantaged and disadvantaged populations within and between cities" and suggested that this split could doom the prospects for a progressive resurgence. Back in the mid-80's Edsall was one of the first to sound the alarm about the coming inequality problem in the U,S. in his book "The New Politics of Inequality." Hope he isn't as prescient about the potential petering out of the celebrated blue wave!
One reason people are upset with homeless shelters is that the government refuses to provide the related needed services. In the US, an employer is allowed to demand drug testing. A shelter should do the same.
9
To what end? You want to deny people access if they fail a drug test so they end up on the street again? Better the shelters should connect people with addiction services and counseling. It's discouraging to see so little compassion from people who can't understand how incredibly difficult a life of poverty and homelessness can be.
8
The homeless are with us everywhere, and their choice of location can present problems unique to that area. This article describes the problems of a densely populated city; in my small town, a two mile by four mile island where tourism is the primary industry, the homeless are attracted to it for the same reasons as the residents. One aspect which is more apparent here is that so much of the housing stock is second and third homes that sit vacant seven or eight months a year. So a homeless family living in their car could be parked in front of a vacant third home.
A major complaint of tourists is the derth of public restrooms and the shop and restaurant owners who restrict their facilities for their patrons. Ironically, CVS has encouraged tourists' use of their restrooms because it forces the user to go through the entire store to get to them. A novel marketing tool to be sure! All of these issues come to the fore anytime the city commission wrestles with adding more open air facilities for the tourists which are taken over by the homeless. The snowbirds are defensive of their wealth and the fulltime residents with families want a wholesome environment in which to raise their children. Each community with its unique issues struggles to find unique humane answers.
3
Ms. Silverstein spends a 100 hours week hawking clothes? Perhaps her soul could benefit from volunteer work at a shelter? I am being mean, sorry. I live near the West 58th Street block the uproar is over. Creepy block. Sorry. The shelter isn't going to change the tone of this narrow, congested, dark cubby hole of Manhattan. It might actually bring some upbeat energy to it.
20
Too bad there wasn't access to a few months rent payments @$600 per month for the gentleman who first lost his job, then within a month his home. And funding that didn't require a ton of jumping through hoops to get it. Even a year's worth, $7200, is less expensive than the shelter costs. Maybe I am naive, but maybe offering this type of aid is a better solution. And, yes, cap the times one could access the funds, and put limits on $$ dispensed, but if it's evictions driving homelessness it just seems like common sense.
23
What these NIMBY people seem to forget is that a "burp" in the stock market could send a goodly number of them into the streets, needing the very shelters they oppose.
9
Wouldn’t it be easier if they found somewhere cheaper to live? Move to Sioux Falls. Why New York? A work ethic would be nice too.
9
How many jobs are available in Sioux Falls?
3
As many, per capita, as in NYC. PS: the work ethic goes a long way toward remaining employed.
2
Honestly, do you think people can just pick up and move to Sioux Falls? With what money? To what? This is a pat, sarcastic answer to a much more complex problem. Get real.
2
Since Manhattan is the bluest region of a blue state, one would think this would be a chance for progressives to show they live their rhetoric. Their passion for the poor seems to fade the closer the poor actually get. It is clear what they want done-- put these types of places in working class areas, then lecture the working class on how to handle race and class. I hope this holds a mirror up to the faces of elites and helps them see the source of so much resentment. It isn't envy. It is hypocrisy like this. Slick website and PR managers are just lipstick on this pig.
25
You lost me at "elites", pal.
It's interesting how the local tourism agency, NYC & Company has nothing to say about how hotels get removed from the inventory for tourist, and hotels get removed from inventory where they are turned into coops/condos. How about we address Beth Israel Hospital who says they have an underserved building where they want to knock it down. You have a facility that has beds, medical assistance and staff. How is the city not taking some floors of the hospital or re-purposing the building for the needy.
7
I've got homeless in my neighborhood and a drug clinic. I see the homeless and the addicted every day and I am not the least bit afraid. There has been no crime to speak of associated with them. And I'm well used to their panhandling. Bottom line, the homeless cause me no problem day to day. But I figure they lower the value of my home by $50-$100,000. Please don't lecture me about the homeless. I'd just appreciate a $50,000 payment upon the sale of my home. Opening your neighborhood to the homeless is expensive and those who lecture about it should pay me what it costs me. Then, we'll be even.
28
I lived for a summer in my Swedish girlfriends apartment in Stockholm, Globan to be exact. It was postwar, tidy, lots of blond wood, and bland and cheap. Her neighbor was an unemployed drunk, an occasionally loud, unhinged guy, and his similarly reasonable apartment was free from the state. He wasn’t her first “dole” neighbor. If they got out of hand, they were out and onto the next, less appealing place. So yes, there was some motivation for him to keep himself in check. Anyway, the system works. He had a place that was his, that he could get drunk and rage in, as long as he kept it fairly low key. I read housing 1 homeless person costs NYC $25-50k/yr. surely a cheap boring apartment surrounded by peoples whose actions you might realize are worth modeling would be cheaper, might chill the guy out, and spread a little diversity. I realize I become persona non grata once you bring up Sweden in a discussion about social policy, but I think we should try it here. The trick will be to get the booters to boot the rightly bootees.
17
Those baleful words "loud, unhinged" do not inspire confidence in your proposal. Neither did "masturbating" and "punch my daugher in the face" in the main article. I think I'm with the NIMBYs on this one. Maybe the Mayor can take the loud, unhinged, fist-throwing masturbators into his own home?
Pleaser, Ms Gay; don't use the tired and pointless 'but what about the children' argument. While name-calling of any kind is wrong, I can say - as Simone who was once homeless themself - that I wouldn't went a homeless shelter near me, today.
It's one thing to be altruistic, and think that having a (fill-in-the-blank) (1) homeless shelter, (2) methadone clinic, (3) half-way, or three-quarter house next door is 'fine', but, I'm more than happy to tell you - as a person who's been in several of the aforementioned; having one near-by is NOT something which is either 'good' for an area, or 'un-noticeable'.
In fact, depending upon what services are provided, a shelter (or ANY of the aforementioned) can and WILL be detrimental and unless Ms Gay wants to spend a (single) night aft ANY shelter, having someone who literally has no experience, no first-hand knowledge, her views of what such a facility would mean and what such a facility WILL bring to an area is nonsense
24
There are 60,000 homeless people in NYC? I think the more important question is WHY.
15
After growing up in NYC in the 1970s, and spending the '90s as a NYC*EMS paramedic, I can tell you that I would fight with every ounce of my strength to keep a homeless shelter out of my neighborhood, and if I ultimately failed, I would move.
There is nothing so noxious to a neighborhood, not even a methadone clinic (though that comes close). If you want to live next door to a homeless shelter, and step over unconscious drunks in your vestibule, be accosted by pushy inebriated panhandlers, listen to fistfights in the streets, and be awakened by repeated ambulance visits through the night, then have at it.
51
The objection seems to be to men, not homelessness... Misandry in plain sight. Might be helpful to call it what it is.
6
You have a point, but it is also (as the original article admits) a case of masturbating "in plain sight." Do homeless women do that?
3
The fine folks of Manhattan don't mind serving the homeless from afar at a soup kitchen around the holiday season, donating clothes, or volunteering their time. But when you move them next door to them then its a [Brooklyn] bridge too far.
9
People are so hypocritical. It's like this in California. They want to help the homeless but this "not in my backyard" just got to stop. Homeless shelter need to go somewhere.
5
Who decides where to place these shelters? Any shelters to be located in the neighborhoods of those who do decide? Maybe one next door to De Blasio?
17
People should not be living in a city such as NYC, and with its diversity of religions, ethnicities, economic levels, education levels, sexual orientations, professionals vs cleaning people vs unemployed, luxury building dwellers vs public housing dwellers vs homeless.... no one should be living here in the first place, if their expectation is to try and perfectly 'curate' their entire block and all those who happen to live there.
That's what makes this city so great...the fact that you can never predict who you will be rubbing shoulders with, from one minute to the next.
There's nothing wrong with homelessness in and of itself. That said, yes, there is a segment of homeless who also have severe mental illness, and that's something this country clearly needs to do better at addressing. But that's not to say that these folks still don't deserve a place to live. They gotta live somewhere, and everyone can't obviously say 'not on my block'!
And really, on a block like 58th St. in Midtown, it's not as if the block will look 'overrun' with homeless, as there are so many other things going on...so many other people...buildings...establishments etc., on that block. They will barely be noticed, except by those who are specifically looking for them.
4
The truly wretched results of Capitalism are the separations of classes defined by both current advantaged earnings and enabling economic enfranchisements during their youth, versus a past of hardship and economic ruin resulting in social malfeasances. With true egalitarianism, all these differences would eventually disappear.
Capitalism is not the way you earn a living. It amounts to people who never lift a finger to build an automobile, determining the value of a worker's time based on their demand for dividend payments, for doing nothing. People who are paid wages are like slaves to those wages; no contracts, week to week under someone or parties that Lord It Over You. For their gain and investor's gain.
Free Enterprise is not the enemy. Corporations designed for the rich to make money off your work are evil and wrong and like slave owners in fact.
Homelessness is the result of greed and avarice and nothing but, not to mention shortsighted. Pain with no gain coming.
7
Richard, I'd like to see you survive without capitalism. Can't be done. Sorry to burst that bubble.
3
Socialism is the Future, Margo like it or not. People are sick to death of catering to 1% of the population. Hope they do not resort to what the French did in the Reign of Terror.
So we'll do away with capitalism how are you going to buy that new I Phone? On a barter system?
Until we show kindness and compassion to all people, we will never be able to move forward to an enlightened society where all are treated equally, given the same chances, and given food, shelter and clothing, the basic necessities of life.
3
everybody complains about the homeless overflow on the streets and the trains but when the city starts building shelters (esp for men) those same ppl start protesting.
none of them ever have any alternatives other then "nope, not here!" where is the city supposed to put these people then?
they cant be legally forced out of the city and i doubt any NYC admin (unless under very dire circumstances) would enact laws that would criminalize homelessness as much as legally possible. the city already has a program that buses out homeless ppl and they've tried incentivizing homeless ppl with supportive, subsidized housing. clearly these efforts arent making that much of a difference.
so basically this problem is quagmire. *shrug*
CNN just did a story about how 42% of Americans are too poor to be considered middle class. These are working class Americans but wages haven't kept up with the cost of living. We need to change the narrative and help those who are fortunate enough not to worry about having a roof over their heads to realize that it's in their best interests to help these people. People with nothing to lose eventually rebel against those who are holding them down.
Right now there's this myth that all homeless people are takers who are on drugs and brought this on themselves. That's simply not true. A minimum wage job should be enough to keep a roof over your head and food in your belly. Unfortunately that's no longer the case and most Americans are one financial crisis from ending up on the streets.
After the recession corporate America and the banks were bailed out. The rest of us were left to figure it out. It's time for the haves to give back to the have nots.
6
We can thank rich capitalists for the homeless problem. Skyrocketing rents, greed, exploitation of employees, gentrification, outsourcing of factory jobs, and nowadays we expect adults to support families on low wage jobs that were once meant for teenagers. By all means, put homeless people together with the rich greedy folks who made them homeless in the first place. Put some homeless families in Trump Tower.
10
This City is trying to cram these shelters down the throats of neighborhoods all over the City, regardless of if it makes sense or not. Just another example of the extremist bent of the current mayoral administration. I think it is completely appropriate for communities to protect themselves from being forced to accommodate an entity as toxic as a homeless shelter, and wish the W58 residents the best of luck.
9
Without true housing, medical and mental health care, education and job counseling - NYC is just punting the problem down the road. Without these necessary and humane supports, hundreds of men will be booted out each morning en masse. This isn't a home where they can stay all day to eat, read, bathe, relax, use a computer to look for a job, get counseling about their medication, go to a doctor for a bad cough. They are people - some are lost, some are just broke, many are mentally ill, many use drugs to bow out from the pain, some resort to crime. It's a city of billionaires who refuse to fund the more complex, humane solution - but you blame the residents who don't want these people taking over their block when these men are inhumanely forced from their shelter each morning. Stop punting the ball down the road and shoulder the responsibility to find real solutions, Add a homelessness tax to apartment sales of over $5 million - and build real housing for mixed populations of people that are not all homeless, with comprehensive supportive care services. That's the real work that needs to be done. Stop criminalizing the people who don't want the wrong answer - for everyone - on their doorstep.
10
Homeless shelters house people and families who have fallen on hard times, fine, but they also house mentality ill and dangerous out of control individuals. The latter are the problem. I think.
9
"The latter" are only a problem because rich people, like the noble burghers of mid-town, reneged on a promise to provide care for them once state mental institutions were closed.
They made the deal, closed the hospitals, grabbed the savings for themselves and went home to W. 58th, leaving the mentally ill to fend for themselves and the police to deal with them.
Now, they're b-a-a-a-a-c-k...
6
Those voicing the objections voiced here are who need the shelters more than the homeless the shelters are intended for.
The person who believes their working 100 hours a week earns them a berth on 58th street, why do you not recognize how much in jeopardy your situation is if it's secured by having to work that much? That it is so on the face of it proves how close you are, not how far, you are from being homeless. One little mistake and it could be you! The truth is working that hard isn't why you live there. It's plain dumb luck.
Instead, why aren't we building a society where you or I or someone we don't know runs the risk of being homeless? That is the only real solution to homelessness. That means having an infrastructure that adequately handles mental illness, compensating all effort fairly and equitably, and not forcing people into situations that just about anyone who experienced it would be driven to drugs, violence, despair and rage.
Or, we can all throw away people like this society has turned into the generalized term "homeless" and lie about it, mostly to ourselves while working 100 hours a week even though it won't protect one thing that begins your descent into homelessness, that you don't recognize because of the lies.
4
I think this issue is a lot more complicated than the author allows and I think the use of the term "shameful" a bit extreme and lacking in compassion for the residents.
Personally, I think it's kind of ridiculous to put a homeless shelter right in midtown. Everyone would love to live close to their jobs in midtown Manhattan, but I'm not sure that somehow that perk should go to the homeless as opposed to, say, the millions of working class people who commute from other boroughs or farther.
I also think the idea of a men-only shelter raises justified concerns that the author completely fails to even mention.
I lived for years in a nice area of Park Slope a couple of blocks from a women's shelter. I wouldn't have opposed such a shelter there and it wasn't unbearable but it was certainly true that the entry area and front yard area of that shelter was often full of women smoking, drunk or on other drugs, shouting, panhandling, etc. I never actually feared for my safety but I also didn't love strolling by with my young children. Those are legitimate concerns and the author is unreasonably dismissive of them.
28
People may be taught to love their neighbors like themselves, but not all the newly-arriving neighbors are equal. The prejudice against homeless, physically and mentally infirm, and former convicts is a deeply rooted trait of any socially stable neighborhood. Will the homeless like to live in a neighborhood where they are looked at askance?
1
NYC the progressive capital of the world Not saying I agree with policies coming out of the White House but it is the Manhattan folk constantly buzzing about the injustice and lack of concern for the poor among us. Turns out that as long as the solution doesn't inconvenience them they are in favor but the minute their upscale lifestyle maybe slightly inconvenienced they are all worked up.
4
When a shelter opened near us in Chelsea, on W 25th St, we had homeless guys fighting and then galling asleep and urinating in front of our small, non-donor an building. My 7th grade son was no longer safe walking to the F train. Construction guys watched out for our daughter as she came home from school and we started needing 911 daily. The shelter and local police worked with us. After three years equilibrium was reached. Now, afew more years on, our neighborhood isn't as nice as it was before, that block has constant serious issues, but it's no longer scary. The shelter was supposed to have controls in place so level 4 sex offenders didn't stay. That hadn't happened the last time I checked. As we kept failing on that control I gave up. I can't blame people for being upset. The W 25th St BRC shelter permanently changed our daily lives.
20
You know what these mean, wealthy, self-adoring people of midtown are actually saying?
Here, let me translate: "We do indeed, as you astutely point out, have esthetic concerns for our neighborhood and, yes, we readily admit that many of them are based upon stereotypes no more based in fact than the ridiculous idea that very rich people just want everyone else to give them more money, shut up, and go away."
"Upon further reflection, which we do a lot around here, we find that our concerns largely coalesce around an image of poor and undisciplined men spending endless idle hours on our pristine streets with little to occupy their fevered minds, which we fear will turn naturally to ugly behavior if not outright mayhem."
"Now, this may strike you as an atypical sentiment coming from our quarter: we know now that what's required is for us to give up a portion of our wealth to the establishment of welfare and social programs designed to support these people at a far more civilized level, we need to recognize that just wishing they would get a job is not the same thing as making sure there are well paying, possibly rewarding jobs to get. And, of course, we see now that ripping the heart out of our public schools was a horrible misjudgement on our part, which needs to be not only undone but removed as an option for any conceivable future. Kindly accept our apology."
At least I think that's what their saying. I don't know for sure, I'm a public school kid.
5
I think the author has some “o brother can you spare a dime” ideal about these shelters. I used to live near a men’s shelter in Crown Heights. The problem is that you have a mix of hard working guys among those with severe mental problems and addiction, and it’s the latter that cause all of the problems in the shelter and in the neighborhood. The root problem here is that the City, State and Federal governments have given up on figuring out what to do with people with mental problems and so they end up in either homeless shelters or in prisons. And yes, the neighborhood suffers for it. The author shouldn’t be so quick to judge without first stepping into a men’s shelter to see what it’s like and what impacts it has in local communities.
34
In New York City, the rich and the poor live on the same block. It's been that way for most of the history of the city. The homeless people have to live somewhere. The poor once lived in relative safety in Bowery flop houses and SROs. Many of those SROs are now luxury condos, and the Bowery is now home to millionaire hipsters and those 'strivers' Ms. Silverstein refers to.
Ironically, those very people who don't want the elbows of the downtrodden to rub theirs are integral to the growing homeless problem in New York City. The city needs to do more than warehouse the homeless. They need to encourage, nay, insist on affordable housing, and not just a few token 'affordable' units thrown into luxury developments.
Why must the developers and the wealthy gobble up all the goodies, then despise those who have none? Contrary to popular opinion, greed is *not* good.
How about living simply so that others may simply live?
19
I worked at a large men's homeless shelter in Washington Heights. It was a very troubled population. I had to call the police almost daily to break up fights or collect the inebriated . One interesting fact not shared with the public: approximately 20 - 25 % of the male homeless population are registered sex offenders. Sex offenders have very high rates of homeless because they often cannot live at home (victim or children present) and they can't live near schools and playgrounds. It is very hard to find residences in Manhattan that aren't close to a playground or school. Hence there is a "build up" of sex offenders in NYC shelters. It is very hard to place them in the community and hence they remain at the shelters for lengthy stays.
44
I would never minimize the risk and danger of registered sex offenders living in shelters shared by families. However, I question your "fact" that 20-25% of the male homeless population are registered sex offenders. According to the most recent study by NY State Senator Klein in September of 2017 there are a total of "21 registered Level 2 and 3 sex offenders were found to be residing at family homeless shelters throughout New York City." That is out of a nightly population of approximately 40,000 people across the city's roughly 150 family shelters.
Source: NYS Senate report - Unsafe Shelter - Registered Sex Offenders at Family Homeless Shelters
5
We need solutions to the problem of homelessness. It's been with us for a long time, and it will never be solved completely. Using an SRO is definitely a band-aid. I am sympathetic to the neighbors who don't want their quality of life further eroded by having to shoulder this shelter on their block. But also sympathetic to the men who need to utilize it. No easy solutions. A more competent mayor and administration could perhaps come up with better solutions, and also work more collaboratively with the community.
One question for Ms. Gay: Truthfully, if this shelter were on your block, would you be 100% ok with it?
8
Suzanne Silverstein, president of the West 58th Street Coalition, said she believes the de Blasio administration is trying to make an example of her and her neighbors.
“Yes, we live comfortably,” Ms. Silverstein told me, “but he’s not sticking it to billionaires, he’s sticking it to people like myself who work 100 hours a week. We’re not bad people. We’re just trying to get ahead.” Ms. Silverstein said she wouldn’t rule out a lawsuit if the city put its plan into effect.
—-
Does she work 100 hrs a week for the Coalition? Maybe they need to hire more staff.
6
She's clearly lying because she certainly has enough time in her day to run this coalition of white privilege.
1
Honestly, it's probably better to have a shelter like this in such a densely populated area. Any problematic residents will have much less impact (and be attended to more quickly) than in a less central working-class enclave like Maspeth. And access to potential jobs, training, and services is much better in midtown Manhattan.
It also seems like there should be more daytime access to shelter - even if not a bed, a place to sit on a chair, wash up, watch TV, and access the Internet for training and job application purposes.
15
Please read up on who comprises the population of a shelter for homeless men, ml.
Access to the Internet? Job training and applications? Even washing up isn't on their wish list.
2
Mega-centralization and population density is linked to homelessness by market forces that cause higher cost of housing. The city adding to that does not seem to an effective strategy to fight for the homeless. Everyone does have a right to a home, but I don't know where it is written that everyone has a right to a home in one of the most expensive zip codes. This property would house only an insignificant number of homeless men when the revenue from a sale or lease of the property (not to mention future tax revenue) could be used more efficiently elsewhere. In case they haven't noticed, Manhattan is kind of crowded. De-centralize, don't compound the problem.
13
In their 2017 report, "Turning the Tide on Homelessness", Mayor de Blasio and Commissioner Banks promise to work with communities, give notice of planned shelter sites, form Community Advisory Boards (CAB), and be transparent. In fact, none of those promises have been honored. No notice was given of the West 58th St. location; the City only admitted that the site was selected after residents found out about it despite the City's 9-month coverup. DHS was asked in early January to form a CAB; they have thus-far refused to do so, and say they might form one but only after the shelter opens. Filings with the Department of Buildings (DOB) were made in November--and rejected by DOB. Additional filings were made in December--and again rejected. Yet construction started before Thanksgiving. Gas, electrical and plumbing lines were moved, without permits, without licensed contractors, putting residents' lives and property in jeopardy. Construction complaints to DOB were suppressed by the City until workers were caught on-camera by CBS News doing illegal work. Yet, despite a Stop-Work Order issued by DOB, construction continued. In "Turning the Tide", the Mayor and DHS claim that communities will see the light and welcome shelters to their neighborhoods. It's hard to see the light when the Mayor, Commissioner Banks, and the entire DHS process are calculated to keep communities in the dark. No notice; no transparency; no cooperation; no communication.
23
Apparently relatives of these homeless people have also said NIMBY. Family has a greater responsibility to support family than do nameless strangers, so where's the moral outrage about their decision to ignore the problem and not get involved?
25
That site is worth millions developed.
Why not sell it and use the funds to build a site with 5X as many beds in a less gaudy neighborhood.
It seems like this is more symbolic than highest and best use.
52
The city doesn't own the land, it is owned by a developer who wants to lease it to the city for the shelter. I am sure that in the future the developer will want to redevelop the property at which point anything the developer proposes for the site will be embraced by the community as it will be better than a shelter.
6
As if that would ever happen.
1
I'm sure the developer leasing the space to the city is not doing it purely out of the goodness of their hearts. It is probably still quite a hefty sum of money. Rather than trying to make W 58th Street yet another costly social engineering experiment, why don't they spend the money to build new structures in less densely populated areas? Not only is this less expensive in the long run, more homeless people come off the street and more construction jobs are created. Yes, they are essentially more NYC public housing projects. But the primary motivation should be to get the most people off the streets, period. It shouldn't be about trying to engineer some kind of socioeconomic utopia.
One side seeks to capture the narrative by artful use of emotion, at the expense of a balanced and workable solution.
It’s a legitimate argument that New Yorkers can have about whether they want a society in its trendier venues (read Manhattan largely below 100th Street) consisting solely of the wealthy or getting-there, or one that incorporates a mix of economic classes living and working together organically. To do the latter requires government to artificially intrude in some way (personally, I believe that ways by which government HAS intruded, while well-meaning, have not been effective or even smart, but actually damaging; but that’s another comment). But this argument doesn’t properly include the issue of the chronic homeless.
You can destroy a stable neighborhood which many people have invested their entire lives in building by introducing and maintaining a population that disproportionately consists of the emotionally challenged, the violent, the criminal and the drug-using. Those who emotionally rebel at the prospect of maintaining their neighborhood’s stability in the teeth of such destructive influences have a case.
It’s not about Maspeth as opposed to Midtown. The residents, frequenters and working people of BOTH neighborhoods and all neighborhoods have rights, too, that they labor every day to enjoy, for themselves and for their children.
51
The homeless have challenges and needs that cannot adequately be addressed by siting them all over the city in building-sized enclaves that are difficult and costly to chivy counselors and caregivers of all sorts to, and without adequate security the city places regular people on the streets at palpably greater risk of being accosted.
That ain’t no way to run a cathouse or a great city.
I’ve suggested in this forum over the years that the city needs to concentrate its homeless – it possesses vast tracts of land in four of its five boroughs (other than Manhattan), where counsellors and caregivers can be more cost-effectively deployed, to treat emotional and mental challenges, to deal with other health issues, to help find work and even permanent housing that fits within the constraints of incomes, so that people can be re-introduced to stable communities where they again can assist in building and maintaining those communities. And, yes, where the potentially violent can be adequately supervised.
Bus transportation can be provided from and to such facilities to all parts of the city, directly and to subway hubs.
THIS is de Blasio’s challenge. He won’t meet it by forcing a building of the homeless on Maspeth or Midtown, or by merely railing against NIMBY.
10
This is one of the very few times when I've agreed with you - and in this case, wholeheartedly. Your comments are well-thought-out and sensible. Unfortunately, however, our mayor and his staunchest supporters won't do anything that sensible. (Btw, I'm a lifelong Democrat).
Richard,
I think you are operating under a misconception of who the homeless are
First, about two thirds of the homeless are members of families with children - that’s 40,000 of the 60,000. And over half those are children - 22,000.
(http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dhs/downloads/pdf/dailyreport.pdf)
Second, the city does use some of it’s vast space. For example on Randall/Wards Islands there are 5 homeless shelters. There’s no residential housing otherwise in tbat space otherwise (and if you visit these you’d see how inadequate this solution is).
Third, you may be surprised at the amount of government housing (NYCHA) and shelters that exists below 100th st, as well as NGO housing (subsidized housing).
And as the article pointed out over one third of the adults in the shelters work full time.
Yes, there are big issues with mental illness, but the issues are vastly bigger than that too. And many of the homeless with mental illness are not in the shelters but are street homeless
For example it used to be that the majority of street homeless were veterans, many with PTSD. But the city did enormous outreach to that population to reduce it.
It just isn’t that simple.
28
How about a few token shelters on the Upper East Side? Serious intiatives wouldn't consider prime real estate. Once back on their feet, the recently homeless won't be able to afford housing in Manhattan anyway. It's easier for politicians to scream intolerance than create workable, comprehensive solutions.
32
It's a lot easier to rent shelters than to build housing. Instead of focusing on that, this article just demonizes people who don't want homeless men - and all the problems that come with them - in their neighbourhood. Of course people don't want homeless men around! In 1991 I lived exactly one block from the Park Savoy hotel and NYC had an even more serious problem with homelessness then. A woman was harassed daily by one of the the homeless men and then one morning she was stabbed to death while walking her dogs. The danger is not just theoretical.
So you can argue that people should put altruism above self preservation, but it's not much of a contest. Besides, who wants to be altruistic when you aren't even solving the problem? And you are also spending more money than you need to? It's a guarantee that each of these men would prefer their own apartments to having to use a shelter - so why spend $50,000 per man per year on a shelter? Once they get a job, will they be able to leave the shelter? Probably not, as Manhattan rents are sky high. Most shelters require the people to leave during the day. How does the city expect people who are under the stress of not having a place of their own during the day to reintegrate and figure their lives out enough to eventually afford Manhattan rents? It's not happening. This is expensive virtue signalling that sweeps the real problem under the rug. It is not setting the city or these men up for future success.
65
The 80's saw homeless people, but not in the numbers we see now. The odd thing about people protesting this shelter is that it isn't as if they will live in a neighborhood without homeless people if it isn't open. They'll just live in a neighborhood with homeless people on the street, same as last month.
We have to be altruistic before we solve the problem, because this isn't going to be solved overnight. Refusing to do anything until we have the perfect solution is no excuse. And if you want to scaremonger with stories of stabbing, remember they can happen anytime, anyplace, and mostly don't.
5
Juan Peron reportedly had a smelly herring cart parked on the sidewalk outside the elite Buenos Aires Jockey Club. Is this de Blasio’s way of sticking it to those 57 St billionaires he hates so much?
But seriously. I think the residents may be overreacting. In our crazy city public housing is routinely adjacent to luxury condos. On the five block walk from the subway to my coop I pass a building whose residents appear to be all male and more diverse than the Upper East Side norm. Curiosity caused me to Google the name that appears on the small sign outside, revealing that it’s a half way house.
If a single neighborhood has an overwhelming number of homeless shelters, half way houses or even herring stands, it’s a recipe for decline. Short of that, messy (figuratively speaking) spots in our otherwise affluent city are just part of the mosaic.
35
Folks in Manhattan are right. These same policies were implemented in San Francisco and turned into chaos. Enabling destructive behavior is not compassion.
47
Build a shelter in Central Park--I'm not being facetious. Boundless park space; no harm in setting aside a few acres.
10
And build an enclosure, Sean? Let us watch their antics?Encourage us to throw them crusts?
1
Not workable.
NYC by law must provide shelter for anyone who can evidence they are homeless.
Probably a unique situation in the US if not the world
The city spends over $400,000 per day on hotel rooms for the overflow from the shelters.
As this article points out the lack of affordable housing drives this, with eviction being the number one cause of homelessness
The city needs more shelters, and not just in the periphery but in areas close to where there is work, and for family shelters where there are good schools.
All that being said there needs to be more affordable housing - for people to be placed after the shelters and to prevent them becoming homeless to start off with.
35
Thank goodness we are trying to help the poor... and the emotionally disturbed. We need to be smart about it -- this location is eye-watering expensive and in a bizarre location. One issue, in light of the bribe culture that infects NY government and the hustlers who swirl around politicians, is why the Savoy was chosen as a recipient of City payments? Who owns it, what's the story behind their new-found government cashflows, and how were they chosen as a recipient of City funds? I hope we do not have a case of connected people gaining financial return behind the critical mandate of helping our poor citizens. Let's get more shelters -- and let's get more transparency, especially from this Mayor.
39
Back in the late 1980's the Savoy Hotel was the playpen used by johns, expensive hookers working openly at 58th and 6th Avenue. When Police Commissioner Bratton moved nearby the hookers were banished.
2
As a resident of the Garment District, I see homeless men every day with no choice but to sleep on the streets. They are robbed and brutalized and often succumb to worse things than being homeless. I don't like seeing that and it makes my quality of life worse. But the method that would make things better for me is the same as that which would improve their standing. If they are already here, we must as good neighbors give them a warm bed and safety.
They are here for a reason: jobs, denser and easier panhandling, people they know, even neighbors like me that they might see every day and hopefully have something nice to eat or a dollar. I have compassion for them and I hope that by stabilizing them here, in Manhattan, where they already are, we can help raise the standards for all residents -- both me AND them.
104
Anna,
No one has to live on the street - by law the city must provide hosing to anyone who can evidence they are homeless
The street homeless community - about 1000-3000 people - live on the street for a variety of reason
Mental illness is one, fear of the overcrowded shelters is another. There are also illegals who are afraid of the system
And there are runaway minors fearful of returning to their home so want to stay under the radar.
The city constantly tries outreach to this street homeless community especially on cold nights and counts them annually (http://www1.nyc.gov/site/dhs/outreach/hope.page)
Many of those on the street during the day are actually living in the shelters, many of which do not allow them to stay inside during the day.
Many shelters for single men and women have their residents leave in the morning and then return by a set curfew.
They then often use the subway or walk to or are already in more affluent areas. There is more money to be begged there, and often meal services run for them.
So no matter where these shelters are placed and no matter how affluent your area you will find those less fortunate.
12
Why are any of our tax dollars spent to house men between 16-65? This once brutal but effective capitalist economy has become one of coddling and entitlement.
3
In the Garmet District how many buildings have turned into hotels and garmet manufacturacturing doesn't exist anymore. What exactly does the Garmet District Business Improvement District do to address lack of job growth, greed of landlords and owners, and the creation of no affordable housing in the area?
2
Suzanne Silverstein who opposes the shelter says "people like us work 100 hours a week" - how would she even know what's going on in her own neighborhood being at work so many hours per week? If this wasn't in the news, would she know it even opened? Homelessness is a problem EVERYWHERE because of the high cost of living - too high for many of us to live comfortably.
89
Agreed. Why does Ms. Silverstein not see that having to work 100 hours a week proves how precarious her life is? All that work proves how much one little slip and she too could be on the road to homelessness. Why is this only visible to those who have lost? She needs that shelter to demonstrate how precarious her life if for no other reason than an object lesson for how dangerous her beliefs are to her.
14
Seriously, if you work that much you might as well just sleep at your desk and let someone else use your apartment. Of course, it's basically impossible to actually work over 14 hours a day 7 days a week.
13
You could title every oped and article in this paper Too Many People. Yes, there would still be homeless people even if there were fewer people, but we treat each other so callously because there are too many humans, and any quantity in surplus goes down in value.
7
Housing in New York is expensive for the exact same reason: neighborhood residents seek to spike new housing for a variety of reasons. So in a city that needs to construct 75,000 new units annually, the result is fewer new apartments and higher rents for everyone. Here too, unfortunately, city counsel members often lead the charge against higher density buildings.
17
The homeless in a large urban center like NYC aren't dispersed and relegated to one certain area that's out of sight and out of mind. Which is apparently what the opponents here want. Something like a homeless camp on the outskirts of town akin to what we've seen in Seattle and Sacramento or the refugee camp in Calais before it was bulldozed.
Instead, the homeless are everywhere and suffering in plain sight. The best way to help them is to construct shelters so that aid can be efficiently dispersed. Social workers wandering the streets looking for homeless isn't the way to go about doing that.
If NYC really prides itself as an anti-Trump haven, it should do what it can to expand its safety net for the homeless. The same goes for San Francisco, Los Angeles, etc. Protecting immigrants is fine but consider the American homeless, many of them veterans, all of them products of an uncaring social superstructure.
133
Any honorably discharged veteran who is not a pedophile and does not wish to remain homeless has options. They should go to the nearest VA clinic, register, and ask about the HUD VASH program.
5
Homeless shelters, by definition, are supposed to be temporary. What is the long term plan here? How will the shelter's residents (whomever and wherever they may be) be transitioned into their own apartments? Are there training programs? Employment initiatives? Affordable housing planned for the near future? All of these things should be within the scope of the plan. If not, then it's not a homeless shelter; it's an SRO, and we're taking a giant step back to the eighties.
50
The long term plan is that these shelters are safety valves so that already-rich landlords can charge ever-increasing rents to the wealthy without having to worry about the consequence of armies of the homeless people they've dispossessed setting up barricades and fighting to get their homes back.
6
All good questions, but if you're homeless, you shouldn't have to wait for us to have all the answers, which won't be quick.
Remember who sits at the top of the federal housing agency. Ben Carson isn't interested in advancing things. We'll all be lucky to see '80's squalor.
6
The homeless are living in bus shelters in every Manhattan neighborhood. They live in alleys, construction sites, vacant lots, on the street. Men, women, children pass them on the way to work and school, walking cross town to theaters, restaurants. Even the most self-entitled, fearful opponents of shelters should realize it is in their interests to give the homeless stable lives.
185
I wonder how many media owners, writers of articles like this one, and persons commenting on this piece are lobbying to have homeless shelters placed next to their homes or on their blocks.
6
I am pretty sure those owners of the NYT and the members of its editorial board who live in NYC would not want homeless shelters placed next door to their homes or even in their blocks or neighborhoods.
And how about the writer of this article, are you lobbying to have a homeless shelter placed next to your home or on your block, Ms. Gay?
Please correct me if I have got this wrong.
12
Let's clear things up and not have words put in our mouths. We as working class residents and families of W 58th Street want to help the homeless. No one is suggesting otherwise. It's divisive and politically advantageous to try and pin our community against the homeless.
The real problem that this article is failing to address is the cost and who is profiting from the homeless.
The City is trying to pay through a contract with Westhab (who has no experience running shelters in Manhattan) an exorbitant cost of $50,000 per person per year (more than the starting salary of an NYPD officer). That’s 38% more than an average shelter location for a total excessive expense of $18 million. It works out to $8,000 per hotel room per month! With an extra $18 million many more homeless could be helped if placed in a less expensive location. The city could provide permanent housing at a lower cost per month. They could use the money saved to help more homeless, provide more funding for our school district (which has horrible ratings) or provide more funding to other public services like the NYPD and NYFD.
It’s not about “not in my backyard”. It’s about forcing our politicians to stop taking money from private companies that profit off the homeless. To force our politicians to allocate funding to affordable housing and permanent solutions to helping the homeless, improving our schools and public services.
47
When the homeless start setting up tents on the streets, sidewalks, and vacant land around town, (I'm from California, so these are the hazards of driving and walking in the Bay Area urban areas where I live) the homeless shelters will start looking much better. Shades of "It Takes a Hero." We all need to be heroes, because there but for the grace of God go I. (and quite possibly you)
149
You are so correct!!! Thank you for your comment. I’m upper middle class and I’m very thankful for what I have. Shelters help a lot. I find it alarming that these people fighting the shelters lack empathy. There but for the grace of good luck (or God) go I.
77
The only reason it's not like this in NYC is because in CA, you can live in a tent and not freeze to death in the winter. In NYC you cannot.
4
That is sweet. Let them move in with you.
Crickets.
4
Why does it make sense for a homeless shelter to be in a prime real estate location? Perhaps, this real estate is better used as affordable housing? A win-win for lower-income NYC workers and the city (i.e. achieving the city's goals of keeping the city's workers in NYC and at least recovering some of the cost of the real estate).
56
affordable means different things to ppl in different income brackets. affordable in this context could mean $1,000 or $1,200 a month for rent. if ur a working homeless person, you probably cant afford that rent long-term.
3
The Park Savoy building is a dump. That block on West 58th Street is abysmal. Prime real estate if you enter on Central Park South or West 57th Street. That particular West 58th Street block is merely one big service entrance.
5
It makes no economic sense to put a shelter at that location. The rent the city must be paying would seem to be an unconscionable use of public money. Is there no alternative a few blocks west at a fraction of the cost?
65
On the contrary, it is the most efficient place to put front and center the results of our society that exist only because we as a society lie to ourselves and everyone we know and don't know about the failings of our choices. Once out in the open where everyone must cope with the negative aspects of what we do is the single greatest thing we can do to make the changes required to make our society safer for everyone.
15
Perhaps you didn’t read that many of these folks work, were displaced from their NYC homes probably by city practices to begin with. Why shouldn’t they have easier access to their jobs, some payback from the city and better schools for their children?
7
uh no maybe a few miles west