Homeless issue is much worse this year

emilyb

Unfortunately, supportive housing can be a total joke - it depends on what non-profit organization runs the housing. Housing & Services, Inc., for instance, is completely corrupt. Common Ground is better. It's a complicated issue, and I know about it from both sides: I was a tenant advocate in an S.R.O. for a long time. 

Not all formerly homeless folks fit the preferred MICA, chronically homeless profile. Some people just hit the skids because of health problems and other situations like having to escape domestic violence, compounded with having lost a job or having gone through a bad divorce. By the way, MICA means mentally ill, chemically abusing (drugs, alcohol). The social workers hired by a dumba** organization like HSI are usually very young and inexperienced, and are often in the process of getting their social work credentials together  - and learning how to work with a much older population of people on the job. They don't have the education or life experience to know much about what to do to effectively help people, and because their salary is based on billing the tenants' Medicaid, and reporting statistical & demographic info to gov't agencies like HUD, they often try to coerce people to use their services in a one-size-fits-all kinda way, instead of targeting people who really truly need help - and the help they offer is so minimal it's practically a joke. 

The bottom line is that over the past 20-30 years there's been a real push to get the homeless in off the streets - which on one level is a good thing - but on another level, the shelters AND supportive housing just warehouses them. I've seen people in supportive housing continue to drink & drug for years, and nobody makes them accountable for cleaning up and getting a new lease on life; because of the policies of "housing first" (get them in off the street) and "harm reduction" (you can't go after them and penalize them with legal action for illegal activity like dealing drugs) it's hard to see how this is really helpful in the long run - except that nobody should have to live on the street.

But from another perspective, some of the tenants in supportive housing and shelters are getting away with stuff that just doesn't cut it in housing projects, let alone normal housing. NYCHA won't take people who've been incarcerated, and they kick out the drug dealers and put them on a "Not Wanted" list that they publish.

Sorry for going on and on. I guess my point is this: there are lots of reasons for homelessness, and I agree with getting people in off the street, but the system is broken because it doesn't address some of the real issues that make PART of that population simply self-destructive, and it's a shame. 

whynot_31

There are many motivations for getting people into housing, and many of them -frankly- don't care whether the individual improves their life.

If a homeless person becomes better, or more self sufficient as a result of being given an apartment that improves the Central Business District, that is nice

....but if they don't, that is ok too. In fact, it isn't really relevant to many of the forces behind the funding.

Dawndew

Anything to keep them from rifling my trash for God knows what. These past 6 months have been the worst is years. I'm Not upset with the looking but with the disaster they leave behind.

whynot_31

Fallout from the NYT's "discovery" of 3/4 housing has begun: The NYC comptroller is earning easy points by stating that HRA and DHS should not longer refer tenants to them.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/redirect?to-mobile=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/nyregion/new-york-comptroller-taking-aim-at-three-quarter-homes-urges-city-agencies-to-end-referrals.html?referrer=

Um, would you prefer we send them to your Apt? Maybe the Marriott ?

brickstoner

So what are the whynottian predictions for the Homeless Problem for 2015?

Everyone in my neighborhood says it's worse this year than last.

I saw that article too - it's impressive that the NYT can do some investigative reporting on corruption that gets investigated, and then write an article about their article. Journalism led to something being done.

To me it points to a lack of regulation of these 3/4 houses or whatever solution could replace them. Unfortunately, oversight costs money.

whynot_31

I don't see a powerful enough force to stop the growth.

So, if you would like a city job, applying to DHS is a good bet. If you meet the qualifications, you are likely to get an interview and I expect it to be at least five years before the agency is targeted for cuts:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dhs/html/about/work.shtml

This is in sharp contrast to the job retention prospects I perceive at agencies like the DOE/BOE, ACS, and DOHMH.

whynot_31

The DN chimes in: http://m.nydailynews.com/new-york/adults-shelters-increase-59-5-years-report-article-1.2255522?cid=bitly

southeast

I have an innocent question.  Please don't take it the wrong way...

Why don't people search for a more affordable places?  My understanding is that there are many who are working, but as a result of the higher cost of living in NYC, end up homeless or close to it.  If that is indeed the case, to the extent they can (e.g., able bodied), are they searching for jobs in lower cost areas?  For example, if someone works in retail and they are not making enough to live here, look for a retail job in a more affordable area which may end up being outside NYC.  Why stick around?  It's not like the weather is attractive (e.g., southern California).

I understand that this is less than ideal, but in my mind, it is far better than being homeless or close to it.  I understand the individual has connections here, family, etc., but it's not like generations haven't done this before (particularly, when there wasn't this much support, which may be the reason why they took the leap).  Again, moving is less than ideal...  But the alternative is less than ideal as well.

Maybe we should offer services in these areas; trying to get people back on their feet in sustainable way.  I see how this is not the best political move, but this seems like to be a better favor to the individual.

And yes, I understand that there will be serious sociological and economic implications to NYC, but I'm asking this from an individual perspective.

I also understand that there are many who are indeed doing this and moving out of the city, but it just seams reasonable to me for even more people to do so instead of relying on public assistance, assuming they are able bodied.  The current projections paint a horrible picture.

Looking at my immediate neighborhood, many are moving away from family and friends to Queens, upstate, New Jersey, southern Florida (inland), etc. to get away from the cost of living here; to rent/own a larger apartment/house at a quarter the cost.  Every day, I hear discussions of people moving away, making plans, trying to get a group together, etc.

whynot_31

The process you describe is occurring among all social classes and demographics.

While such change is painful, the worst off are unable to pursue a goal that would benefit them.

The reasons are complex. The hands of the city are quite tied: Even if the city had the best intentions, laws prohibit "us" from housing or moving "them" beyond the city's borders.

The decision to move is going to have to happen on an individual basis.

ehgee

It is hard to start in a new city when you're poor— the labor market may be worse and you don't have connections who know how/where to find a job. And if you're ambitious, the top of the labor market can be much lower. And you move away from family connections, which provide a safety net and childcare and company and such. Beyond that, the safety net has many more holes in other states, particularly in the south. If you can't drive or don't own a car, it's difficult to access most jobs in lower-cost cities. If you're an immigrant, there may not be many in your ethnic community in other cities. Things are only complicated with children.

That said, on an individual basis, leaving metro NYC is a generally a good choice for a lower-income person, and even for many high income people who don't particularly value what the city has to offer in comparison to, say, affordable homeownership. But it's risky— moving, then not being able to find a job can mean being out a bunch of money from a few months of unemployment plus moving/apartment expenses. Especially since there aren't YMCAs and SROs and other short-term housing options like there used to be.

In spite of the risk, often over 100,000 people a year make just such a choice, generally moving to places where the legal climate makes it easier to build housing, which can make for a better life for the middle class in spite of lower wages and inferior government services:

http://www.citylab.com/politics/2014/04/2-very-different-migrations-driving-growth-us-cities/8873/

But more immigrants than that move to New York, as they always have.

whynot_31

Part of what we are seeing stems from the pressure on the criminal justice system to reduce the number of people in custody, especially those who are severly mentally ill.

Some perceive the shelter system as merely replacing the jails, as evidenced in part by the security that is now provided/required to safely run the "changed" facilities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/07/nyregion/new-york-city-works-to-improve-safety-of-homeless-shelter-workers.html?_r=1

xlizellx

Raise taxes!!!!!!!

That is all. But seriously. We do not pay enough in taxes.

southeast

Raise taxes!!!!!!!

That is all. But seriously. We do not pay enough in taxes.

?

whynot_31

What we are witnessing is not a lack of funding for homeless services, as much as a failure by gov to plan for the effects of deinstituitionalization and gentrification.

http://www.brooklynian.com/discussion/45645/as-housing-for-the-poorest-disappeares-cost-of-shelter-soars#Item_7

The increase in demand for shelter was a certainty.

It is as if the gov imagined that "these people", as well as their legal obligations to house them would disappear.

....we are witnessing what happens when gov departments each pursue their own self interests, and we now get to see if and how those in charge address the cumulative effects.

mugofmead111

What we are witnessing is not a lack of funding for homeless services, as much as a failure by gov to plan for the effects of deinstituitionalization and gentrification.

http://www.brooklynian.com/discussion/45645/as-housing-for-the-poorest-disappeares-cost-of-shelter-soars#Item_7

The increase in demand for shelter was a certainty.

It is as if the gov imagined that "these people", as well as their legal obligations to house them would disappear.

....we are witnessing what happens when gov departments each pursue their own self interests, and we now get to see if and how those in charge address the cumulative effects.

The point about gentrification makes me think of the situation happening at 60 Clarkson Avenue, which Tim Thomas has been writing about on his blog over the past week. 

whynot_31

That is a situation in which who are already "in the shelter system" are being moved around so the landlord can make more money. Using this definition, they aren't BECOMING homeless, they already are.

The same forces likely contributed to them becoming homeless though.

whynot_31

As discussed above, many of the men served by the homeless system cycle in and out of jail.

The city will soon begin not requiring bail for thousands of people presently held in jail, and this will radically shorten their stay in that part of "the cycle".

While I consider this to be a positive development, this will increase the amount of time that they are likely to spend in shelters.

http://m.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-eliminate-bail-non-violent-suspects-article-1.2285029

The problem is one of capacity. Ever larger portions of the indigent, misdemeanor population will be served by shelters until they are self sufficient.

For some, that day takes a really long time to arrive, if it ever arrives.

whynot_31

Here's how the bail refrom program will work: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/BJI.pdf

whynot_31

We have talked mostly about single adults. Here are some of the dynamics behind families who end up in the shelter system:

http://www.gothamgazette.com/index.php/government/5806-city-fights-to-stem-annual-tide-of-summer-family-homelessness

whynot_31

Back to single adults, the 3/4 houses are not going anywhere. They will get some additional monitoring until the public gets bored, or a class action lawsuit is won.

http://www.cityandstateny.com/2/politics/new-york-city/long-term-solutions-to-three-quarter-houses.html#.VaUuxNm9Kc2

whynot_31

This outreach program to low income tenants in the areas being upzoned has at least two purposes:

1.  Prevent tenant harassment.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-city-tenant-program-counters-harassment-by-landlords-1437162400

2.  Prevent homelessness.

If the shelters still had room to spare, I don't think this program would be as active...

whynot_31

Here come up to 800 additional people: http://m.nydailynews.com/new-york/major-chain-nyc-three-quarter-houses-financial-ruin-article-1.2304839

The 3/4 house "system" is very fragile.

Cue the ominous music:

whynot_31

As a result of well intended regulations and lawsuits, this is what the shelter system for families looks like:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/29/nyregion/long-nights-with-little-sleep-for-homeless-families-seeking-shelter.html

whynot_31

Reasonably well written update:

 http://nyslant.com/article/opinion/new-york-city’s-homelessness-conundrum.html

mugofmead111

This article from Gothamist should be of interest to @whynot_31: City Scraps Maspeth Shelter Plan Citing 'Local Opposition'

While Maspeth is able to drive out a potential homeless shelter, Crown Heights still has the one on Atlantic Avenue and 60 Clarkson still operates as one in PLG.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Interesting.

pragmaticguy

Maspeth didn't totally get rid of it, the city just rented 30 rooms in the Holiday Inn instead of converting the whole place but what I am wondering is, since these homeless men are supposedly employed, are they paying any of the cost to stay there?

mugofmead111

You're right; the city didn't get rid of it all together, but the fact that the city made this kind of concession is significant.

I read that the city supposedly expects the working homeless to kick in for a portion of the cost of staying at a homeless shelter. 

NYC Starts Charging Rent at Homeless Shelters

pragmaticguy

The article was from July 2009 so I'm wondering if it's still enforced. But just from reading it the sense of entitlement that people have is upsetting in that NYC should pay for them for as long as they're in a shelter so they can hopefully find a place of their own.
Which of course may or may not happen and since there's no time limit it could be endless.

whynot_31

Whether its from a sense of entitlement or not, one thing is clear:  More people continue to come into shelters than are leaving.

 http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20161129/OPINION/161129906

whynot_31

It should be interesting to see what effect, if any, today's horrible incident has on the city's attempts to comply with "right to shelter"

https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20161207/hunts-point/danielle-ambrose-girls-killed-steam-social-media