Gentrification and Homelessness in NYC

[IMPress Polly]

So it has now been revealed that the number of people living in New York City without shelter jumped 40% last year alone, following a decade-long trend of rising homelessness in the major American city. The main cause is obvious: over the same ten-year period, median household incomes in New York City rose only 4.8% while median rents increased by 18.3% as more rent-controlled apartments were replaced by high-rise condos and other dwellings built to attract wealthy people. It goes to show that NYC Mayor De Blasio's minimum wage hike and so forth has not been adequate to address the fundamental problem facing the major city's poor, working, and even propertied middle classes: the skyrocketing cost of living resulting from the project of gentrification itself.

Gentrification, for anyone who doesn't know, has been the main means by which America's major cities have sought to rebuild, increase their tax revenues, and improve their economies this century so far. It entails incentivizing more rich people to move in with strategically-placed tax breaks and constructions, thus in turn both actively pushing (through the destruction of rent-controlled apartments, removal of "unsightly" street vendors, etc.) and pricing poorer residents out into the surrounding suburbs. The end result is a switching of positions, wherein wealthier people move from the suburbs into the cities themselves, while poorer people are forced out into what remains of those same suburbs after their tax base has left. The goal in essence is to render the nation's poor out of side and out of mind.

Here in Burlington, Vermont, we once had the problems commonly associated with many major urban centers as well, but Mayor Bernie Sanders solved those issues in a very different way than the elitist one that is more generally being pursued nationwide: first and foremost by introducing community trust housing, thus creating affordable, quality housing for the city's poorer residents rather than just trying to get rid of them.

I make these points to promote the anti-gentrification movement. It's our modern-day analogy to the old agrarian populist movement and its cause unfortunately seems just as hopeless, but it is nonetheless clearly the moral side of this class conflict.

[Common]

Polly I agree totally but theres some other issues involved that you will not like.

Rentors, slumlords big business in NYC, some have gotten fabulously rich having people live in squalor. They have been allowed and enabled over decades to commit crimes against other humans and democrats presided over most of those years. Its something democrats never speak of its one of their mortal sins.

The city leaders mostly democrats could have curbed all the rental problems long ago, but they would have lost a fortune in political donations.

Homelessness has always gotten a very Public back scratch for photo ops but the resources necessary to end it or to really make a difference never come. There are more "ELECTABLE" things to spend money on for big donors.

I posted how could DeBlasio whos real name is Warren Wihelm, he changed his name to win an election in then most all Italian Brooklyn back then. He changed it to sound italian. When later called on it he said he changed his name to honor his mother.

I posted about homelessness across the country that was the worst in all the cities that have become SANCTUARY CITIES, they made themselves sanctuaries for illegal immigrants and american homeless many of whom are combat veterans can eat cake.

The news never prints the real truth of the horror of being homeless in NYC, the atrocities commited on them by other homeless and other people. Homeless women abused relentlessly it goes on from there.

A stray cat has less than half the lifespan of home pet cat. Same with stray dogs, could we think its any different for homeless human beings.

Homelessness is a national disgrace perpetrated for the most part by democrat run cities

[DGUtley]

What should we do?

In my county, our church (the Roman Catholic Church) owns a home next door to the church that the county refers homeless to. The Knights of Columbus (of which I am one) take turns being/sleeping there to be with the homeless in case they need anything. Other church-affiliated groups help as well with food, clothes etc. That home is generally filled 365 days a year.

[Newpublius]

NYC is vertical and as a resuot there really is no shortage of space. Right now the 2nd tallest building in NYC is mixed use and its filled with foreign investors who consume very little city services. In any event, gentrification does not cause homelessness. NYC attracts the homeless for many reasons, specifically because being homeless in NYC is just alot easier than elsewhere. Not saying its easy, but:

1. Those skyrises pay taxes and those taxes pay for services for the homeless.
2. If homeless shelter undesirable, the streets and the city at large offer a large amount of ad hoc shelter.
3. Begging is much more viable and even picking up cans for a nickel for the deposits will get you a quick meal
4. The trains are transport and for the most part if they dont pay nobody bothers them.
5. there's food everywhere

[Common]

What should we do?

In my county, our church (the Roman Catholic Church) owns a home next door to the church that the county refers homeless to. The Knights of Columbus (of which I am one) take turns being/sleeping there to be with the homeless in case they need anything. Other church-affiliated groups help as well with food, clothes etc. That home is generally filled 365 days a year.
Thats all bandaids DG, when I retired and moved to Jersey to be closer to most of our kids. I volunteered with other ret law enforcement to go out and hunt homeless kids to at least get them off the street and young homeless girls being used as sex toys for fun and profit.

We went under one cities boardwalk and after all my years on the street I was shocked by what I saw in a two mile walk. INCREDIBLE hardship.

First of all the mentally ill need to be put in facilities and if we the taxpayer has to pay then we pay. The mentally ill are the most abused and commit some of the worst crimes.

We need to SPEND MONEY on something friggen AMERICAN for a change and give them all a chance. If they dont take the chance, then its on them but we can get most of the homeless off the street. At the minimum the kids and those that served this country. Its a friggen disgrace we have all these homeless and especially homeless with CHILDREN BORN HERE and we allow people to run over the border and give them more then our own.

[Standing Wolf]

We need to SPEND MONEY on something friggen AMERICAN for a change and give them all a chance. If they dont take the chance, then its on them but we can get most of the homeless off the street. At the minimum the kids and those that served this country. Its a friggen disgrace we have all these homeless and especially homeless with CHILDREN BORN HERE and we allow people to run over the border and give them more then our own.

The less politicization of the issue the better, of course - but I have to say that when it comes to spending the tax dollars necessary to do some real good, the fight is not going to be so much with the Democrats you targeted in your earlier post, but with the Republicans. Don't you think that's a fair statement?

[katzgar]

Thats all bandaids DG, when I retired and moved to Jersey to be closer to most of our kids. I volunteered with other ret law enforcement to go out and hunt homeless kids to at least get them off the street and young homeless girls being used as sex toys for fun and profit.

We went under one cities boardwalk and after all my years on the street I was shocked by what I saw in a two mile walk. INCREDIBLE hardship.

First of all the mentally ill need to be put in facilities and if we the taxpayer has to pay then we pay. The mentally ill are the most abused and commit some of the worst crimes.

We need to SPEND MONEY on something friggen AMERICAN for a change and give them all a chance. If they dont take the chance, then its on them but we can get most of the homeless off the street. At the minimum the kids and those that served this country. Its a friggen disgrace we have all these homeless and especially homeless with CHILDREN BORN HERE and we allow people to run over the border and give them more then our own.


I agree completely that the mentally ill need to be housed and cared for differently. The political question is will republicans accept that their hero Reagan screwed mental health care.

[Private Pickle]

I agree completely that the mentally ill need to be housed and cared for differently. The political question is will republicans accept that their hero Reagan screwed mental health care.
Reagan left office 30 years ago...

[katzgar]

Reagan left office 30 years ago...

do your homework before you post foolishness. http://www.povertyinsights.org/2013/10/14/did-reagans-crazy-mental-health-policies-cause-todays-homelessness/

[Private Pickle]

do your homework before you post foolishness. http://www.povertyinsights.org/2013/10/14/did-reagans-crazy-mental-health-policies-cause-todays-homelessness/
Did my homework. Reagan did indeed leave office 29.5 years ago.

[Tahuyaman]

The less politicization of the issue the better, of course - but I have to say that when it comes to spending the tax dollars necessary to do some real good, the fight is not going to be so much with the Democrats you targeted in your earlier post, but with the Republicans. Don't you think that's a fair statement?


Didn't you open your comment by saying "the less politicization the better"?

Homelessness isn't a Democrat vs Republican issue.

[katzgar]

Did my homework. Reagan did indeed leave office 29.5 years ago.

so your post was just pointless? got it

[Private Pickle]

so your post was just pointless? got it
Well just wondering why Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama or Trump are off the hook? I mean Reagan stopped some Federal and State funding. Those Presidents easily could have reinstated it... Yet you are focused on Reagan... Could it be you just don't like Reagan and are going back 30 years to address something that none of his predecessors tackled?

[Standing Wolf]

Didn't you open your comment by saying "the less politicization the better"?

Homelessness isn't a Democrat vs Republican issue.

Agreed...that's why I inserted the "but". The poster made a point of stating that the homelessness situation had worsened under Democratic administrations - which is undeniable - and I'm simply questioning whether Republican administrations, given the Party's reluctance to fund social services to the homeless or pretty much anyone else, would or could have done it better.

[Private Pickle]

Agreed...that's why I inserted the "but". The poster made a point of stating that the homelessness situation had worsened under Democratic administrations - which is undeniable - and I'm simply questioning whether Republican administrations, given the Party's reluctance to fund social services to the homeless or pretty much anyone else, would or could have done it better.
If it worsened under Democratic administrations than doesn't that mean that by default Republicans do better?

[katzgar]

Well just wondering why Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama or Trump are off the hook? I mean Reagan stopped some Federal and State funding. Those Presidents easily could have reinstated it... Yet you are focused on Reagan... Could it be you just don't like Reagan and are going back 30 years to address something that none of his predecessors tackled?

you are making crap up. I never let anyone off the hook. shame on you.

[Tahuyaman]

Agreed...that's why I inserted the "but". The poster made a point of stating that the homelessness situation had worsened under Democratic administrations - which is undeniable - and I'm simply questioning whether Republican administrations, given the Party's reluctance to fund social services to the homeless or pretty much anyone else, would or could have done it better.

I just noticed that you started off by saying less politicization the better, then went on to politicize the issue. You had an opportunity to do exactly what you said should be done, but went in the opposite direction.

[Private Pickle]

you are making crap up. I never let anyone off the hook. shame on you.

So why go back 30 years? Why not go back 6 months?

[Standing Wolf]

I just noticed that you started off by saying less politicization the better, then went on to politicize the issue. You had an opportunity to do exactly what you said should be done, but went in the opposite direction.
I'm not going to get into this any further with you, because you seem intent on making this about me and not the topic. I will simply repeat that I was responding to the other poster's "politicization" of the issue and questioning the relevance of which Party happened to be in charge as the homeless problem got worse. If anything, I was attempting to point out that politics is irrelevant to the discussion. Any clearer?

[Kalkin]

I support gentrification. It refurbishes rundown neighborhoods and cleans the streets of human debris.

[Tahuyaman]

I support gentrification. It refurbishes rundown neighborhoods and cleans the streets of human debris.

Gentrification can be a positive thing. The problem is that it's been portrayed by its opponents as a racist scheme.

[Kalkin]

Gentrification can be a positive thing. The problem is that it's been portrayed by its opponents as a racist scheme.

Because they all think they're mind readers and believe in the concept of thought-crimes.

[Captain Obvious]

So turning roach infested sluns inhabited by crackheads and prostitutes into a way higher tax base inhabited by educated, productive people is a bad thing?

And we wonder why progressive, establishment urban centers are all going broke and turning into complete shit holes.

Homeless people should all be ground up for mulch for our park flower beds.

No, seriously, throw them the fuck out. Canada wants them.

[Tahuyaman]

So turning roach infested sluns inhabited by crackheads and prostitutes into a way higher tax base inhabited by educated, productive people is a bad thing?...

The left portrays it as a scheme to cammoflage racial and ethnic cleansing.

[Mini Me]

Thats all bandaids DG, when I retired and moved to Jersey to be closer to most of our kids. I volunteered with other ret law enforcement to go out and hunt homeless kids to at least get them off the street and young homeless girls being used as sex toys for fun and profit.

We went under one cities boardwalk and after all my years on the street I was shocked by what I saw in a two mile walk. INCREDIBLE hardship.

First of all the mentally ill need to be put in facilities and if we the taxpayer has to pay then we pay. The mentally ill are the most abused and commit some of the worst crimes.

We need to SPEND MONEY on something friggen AMERICAN for a change and give them all a chance. If they dont take the chance, then its on them but we can get most of the homeless off the street. At the minimum the kids and those that served this country. Its a friggen disgrace we have all these homeless and especially homeless with CHILDREN BORN HERE and we allow people to run over the border and give them more then our own.

The wealthy ruling elite have made it a crime to be poor or homeless!

[Mister D]

Progressives appear to be stuck in a John Steinbeck novel. The filthy, drug addicted and crazy element of contemporary homelessness escapes them.

[Captain Obvious]

The wealthy ruling elite have made it a crime to be poor or homeless!

It should be a crime, there is no reason or excuse that anyone in thes nation should be homeless.

Homelessness, hunger, poverty, etc are all products of progressive dependence strategies.

Progress creates dependents, dependents support progressives, on the middle class's dime naturally.

[Dr. Who]

The vast majority of the homeless who remain on the street for any length of time i.e. years are mentally ill. That includes many of the mentally ill who are also drug addicts and self-medicating as well as drug addicts that are actually people who suffer from chronic pain for whom prescription drugs stopped working. They age two to three years for every year on the street. Forty-year-olds end up looking like they are in their mid-sixties or older. They eventually die of disease, exposure or violence.

[Common]

The less politicization of the issue the better, of course - but I have to say that when it comes to spending the tax dollars necessary to do some real good, the fight is not going to be so much with the Democrats you targeted in your earlier post, but with the Republicans. Don't you think that's a fair statement?

The democrats created and promulgate this problem, you cant change that democrats have been in charge of the cities with the homeless problems for decades and have done nothing and have allowed the problem to grow, they are the same ones that created sanctuary citizens. Just the money we pay in public education and free lunchs for illegals would pay for some of the homeless.

[Mister D]

The vast majority of the homeless who remain on the street for any length of time i.e. years are mentally ill. That includes many of the mentally ill who are also drug addicts and self-medicating as well as drug addicts that are actually people who suffer from chronic pain for whom prescription drugs stopped working. They age two to three years for every year on the street. Forty-year-olds end up looking like they are in their mid-sixties or older. They eventually die of disease, exposure or violence.
Exactly. We're not talking about Tom Joad, George and Lennie. Honestly, I think progressive hearts are in the right place but the demographic reality of homelessness is a far cry from their class rhetoric.

[resister]

so your post was just pointless? got it
Had a lot more point than yours did.

[Dr. Who]

Exactly. We're not talking about Tom Joad, George and Lennie. Honestly, I think progressive hearts are in the right place but the demographic reality of homelessness is a far cry from their class rhetoric.

True. Sure, there are a percentage of people who are down on their luck, but they get off the streets. They do what they have to do to get off the streets and/or they take advantage of whatever resources are available because they have the mental wherewithal to do so. They are the minority. They are not mentally ill. The problem is that you cannot warehouse these people in shelters because the shelters become bedlam in the old sense of the word. The shelters become unsafe and ridden with parasites and communicable diseases. They are at best band-aid solutions and it just keeps getting worse. I don't understand how we think it's terrible to deny physically ill people the care that they need but the mentally ill, unless they have attentive and determined families, end up living in boxes under bridges and in alleyways until they die some terrible tragic death. To be honest, I think that people often think that mental illness is an excuse for laziness. Furthermore, it is harder to care for the mentally ill and it is viewed as a drain on the state. There are no immediate medical cures or operations to make them better, so they are just cast adrift.

[IMPress Polly]

I have actually lived in my car for a period of time before myself and yes, I suffered, and still suffer, from major depressive disorder, so I had/have a form of mental illness. That does not mean that self-help solutions like better mental health care options would have made the cost of living more affordable for me. I find it kind of degrading that people so often want to reduce all my sufferings to "you are crazy" instead of ever considering that I might be a perfectly intelligent person who has often lived under adverse material conditions in addition to psychological challenges. Homelessness and hunger are not merely a state of mind no matter how much so many people would like to pretend that they are.

I would furthermore like to protest the reduction of this thread to partisan squabbling. Though it should be fairly obvious that Republicans broadly care less about the working poor than Democrats do, the issue at hand here, gentrification, has been a very bipartisan project. America's major cities are indeed usually run by Democrats and they broadly have participated in the project of gentrification. That doesn't mean that those under Republican administration (like Detroit under its Republican state-imposed "emergency manager") have pursued a different course or something.

I am not a Democrat or a Republican, people. Just as a reminder.

[Peter1469]

I would furthermore like to protest the reduction of this thread to partisan squabbling. Though it should be fairly obvious that Republicans broadly care less about the working poor than Democrats do, the issue at hand here, gentrification, has been a very bipartisan project. America's major cities are indeed usually run by Democrats and they broadly have participated in the project of gentrification. That doesn't mean that those under Republican administration (like Detroit under its Republican state-imposed "emergency manager") have pursued a different course or something.

I am not a Democrat or a Republican, people. Just as a reminder.

DC is runs by (D)s. Yet they are all about rebuilding several areas in town to bring in people who can afford to spend $1600 a month for a 500 sq ft apartment or $800K for a small condo. Along with hipster places and high end resturants. They have even torn down a few tent cities.

[IMPress Polly]

Peter wrote:
DC is runs by (D)s. Yet they are all about rebuilding several areas in town to bring in people who can afford to spend $1600 a month for a 500 sq ft apartment or $800K for a small condo. Along with hipster places and high end resturants. They have even torn down a few tent cities.

Though I feel that I have already spoken to the partisan points made here, I would like to add that I hate hipsters. :tongue:

[Standing Wolf]

So, if you owned a property that you could either (A) leave in its present condition, wherein it was earning you almost nothing and maybe even costing you money, because a great many low income people lived there, or (B) develop the property (or sell it to someone else who would), making you very, very wealthy - you wouldn't have a problem with that decision?

I understand that that's a great oversimplification of the situation; I'm just suggesting that, in practical terms, it's not the black-and-white, greed vs. altruism scenario that some would have it be.

[donttread]

So it has now been revealed that the number of people living in New York City without shelter jumped 40% last year alone, following a decade-long trend of rising homelessness in the major American city. The main cause is obvious: over the same ten-year period, median household incomes in New York City rose only 4.8% while median rents increased by 18.3% as more rent-controlled apartments were replaced by high-rise condos and other dwellings built to attract wealthy people. It goes to show that NYC Mayor De Blasio's minimum wage hike and so forth has not been adequate to address the fundamental problem facing the major city's poor, working, and even propertied middle classes: the skyrocketing cost of living resulting from the project of gentrification itself.

Gentrification, for anyone who doesn't know, has been the main means by which America's major cities have sought to rebuild, increase their tax revenues, and improve their economies this century so far. It entails incentivizing more rich people to move in with strategically-placed tax breaks and constructions, thus in turn both actively pushing (through the destruction of rent-controlled apartments, removal of "unsightly" street vendors, etc.) and pricing poorer residents out into the surrounding suburbs. The end result is a switching of positions, wherein wealthier people move from the suburbs into the cities themselves, while poorer people are forced out into what remains of those same suburbs after their tax base has left. The goal in essence is to render the nation's poor out of side and out of mind.

Here in Burlington, Vermont, we once had the problems commonly associated with many major urban centers as well, but Mayor Bernie Sanders solved those issues in a very different way than the elitist one that is more generally being pursued nationwide: first and foremost by introducing community trust housing, thus creating affordable, quality housing for the city's poorer residents rather than just trying to get rid of them.

I make these points to promote the anti-gentrification movement. It's our modern-day analogy to the old agrarian populist movement and its cause unfortunately seems just as hopeless, but it is nonetheless clearly the moral side of this class conflict.


You cleaned up land theft and price gouging very nicely. Soultion. Send the homeless to the super rich people's neighborhoods.

[Kalkin]

The wealthy ruling elite have made it a crime to be poor or homeless!

No, they haven't. Loitering and trespassing, perhaps, but not poverty and homelessness.

[katzgar]

Had a lot more point than yours did.

mean·ing·less
ˈmēniNGləs/
adjective


having no meaning or significance.
"the paragraph was a jumble of meaningless words"


synonyms:
unintelligible, incomprehensible, incoherent"a jumble of meaningless words"