New York gives homeless people a one-way ticket to leave city

[babylonsister]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/29/new-york-homeless-ticket-leave


New York gives homeless people a one-way ticket to leave city

Families given travel costs to tackle problem of overcrowded shelters and save taxpayers' money



Homeless men asleep on park benches in New York. Photograph: Mario Tama/Getty


New York has found a novel, if expensive, way of dealing with its overcrowded shelters – buying one-way tickets for homeless families to leave the city.

Under the initiative, by the administration of the mayor, Michael Bloomberg, hundreds of families have been given plane, rail, and bus tickets and even petrol vouchers to leave the city. One homeless family of five was given $6,332 (nearly £4,000) worth of travel costs to Paris, according to the New York Times.

The city justifies such costs because it argues the alternative is more expensive. It costs New York's taxpayers $36,000 to put up a homeless family in a night shelter for a year.

Families can qualify for the tickets if they have a relative in another part of the world, including the US, who says they are willing to house them.

Since the $500,000-a-year scheme was launched in 2007, 550 homeless families have been paid to leave the city. None have come back.

more...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/29/new-york-homeless-ticket-leave

[Soylent Brice]

1. *sigh*

makes you proud to be an amurikan, doesn't it.

[Terry in Austin]

2. Problem solved...

...or at least, now they're somebody else's problem.

:eyes:

[Renew Deal]

5. Yes, and a roof over their head.

The article says "Families can qualify for the tickets if they have a relative in another part of the world, including the US, who says they are willing to house them."

What's wrong with that?

[Raineyb]

7. Because they've not bothered to address the real problem of affordable housing in the city

Sending people away doesn't actually fix that and guess what, affordable housing is still extremely difficult to find.

[Renew Deal]

16. Affordable housing and homelessness are separate issues.

And homeless people aren't usually homeless because a lack of affordable housing. Also, once you reach homelessness, it's extremely difficult to get out of it. Putting a roof over these people's heads gives them a chance to build a life.

[Raineyb]

23. Which the city is not doing. All they're doing is moving the homeless to other places

where they're still homeless.
And homelessness and affordable housing are not separate issues. There are people who work more than one job who can't afford a place to live.

[Renew Deal]

27. You're being dishonest

"Families can qualify for the tickets if they have a relative in another part of the world, including the US, who says they are willing to house them."

They are no longer homeless.

[Raineyb]

32. You are the one who is being dishonest

They are living with relatives. (At least until said relative gets tired of them) That is not having a home for one's family.

[Renew Deal]

36. It is having a home.

And having a home doesn't have to mean owning (or renting a home). They live in a home and that's the point. What are the other scenarios besides the "family getting tired of them?" Can anything positive come from this program?

[Raineyb]

38. No it's not it's being a guest at someone else's home. n/t

[Renew Deal]

41. Now we're making progress

Now answer this: What are the other scenarios besides the "family getting tired of them?" Can anything positive come from this program?

[Fumesucker]

66. You are the one who is familiar with other scenarios..

You tell us what else can happen besides "family getting tired of them"..

[Renew Deal]

86. Thank you for proving my point.

:think:

[bobbolink]

107. YOU are the one proving the point... that ignorance and heartlessness ABOUNDS

among so-called "progressives".

Or those who like to taunt progressives.

I don't think you even believe what you are saying... you just want to pick fights.

Pick somewhere else.

[Renew Deal]

111. lol

I have treated you respectfully. You're the one posting insults and accusations and then you accuse me of "picking fights." That's comical.

[bobbolink]

117. You have in effect accused me of lying about being homeless.... and I guess in your world

that is "respect".

This is how neocons treat others.

Congratulations on doing a great job of imitating their tactics.

[Renew Deal]

140. You crack me up.

Show me where I accused you about lying about your situaton. I haven't focused on you personally at all other than when you said you are currently homeless. This discussion is nothing personal about you, though it may have personal relevance. You have hurled insults at me and I have treated you respectfully.

[KDFW]

42. Same as with renters or people with mortgages.

...

[Raineyb]

43. Renters are not guests they pay for the right to live in theri apartments.

It's not the same at all.

[onenote]

72. my elderly dad and my adult brother live under the same roof

If my brother pays the mortgage does that make my dad "homeless"? Or if my dad pays the mortgage does that make my brother "homeless"?

[bobbolink]

97. Incredible ignorance! Much has been written here about the lack of low-income housing causing

homelessness.... why weren't you willing to read it?

LACK OF HOUSING IS THE #1 CAUSE OF HOMELESSNESS.

When Rep. Barney Frank proposed the National Housing Trust Fund, he stated that there are 9 million of us who need Low-Income Housing. There are 6 million available units. Even a first-grader can do that math.

But, I suppose you will argue because it's just so difficult for 'Murkins to admit they are WRONG.

[Renew Deal]

99. Link?

Just because you type it in caps doesn't make it true. And that's not the point of this discussion in the first place. We're not talking about how to prevent homelessness. We're talking about how to deal with a small number of homeless people. At this point "affordable housing" is pointless.

[bobbolink]

103. Small number of homeless people????? MILLIONS is small????

"At this point "affordable housing" is pointless." That kkind of ignorant statement is exactly whyy you need to be homeless. You are one of those who will only learn by experience.

And if you can't google Barney Frank and National Housing Trust Fund, then you need to find another excuse.

Again, MUCH HAS BEEN WRITTEN ON DU ABOUT THE NEED FOR LOW-INCOME HOUSING. If you insist on denying that need, you are just the same as those who insist there is no need for health care reform.

[Renew Deal]

106. You misunderstood what I said.

I mean that this is a solution for a small number of homeless people, not that the overall number of homeless people is small. I am not denying the need for affordble housing. I'm saying that this may be a workable solution for a small number of people. Do you disagree? Do you believe that leaving people on the street or in a shelter is a better outcome than them moving in with welcoming family?

Have you ever been homeless?

[bobbolink]

108. Several of us are disagreeing with you, but you won't hear that.

You insist that you know all.

Go away.

Or live on the streets until you can have a bit more humility.

[Renew Deal]

109. Several of you agree with me

that irrational and angry discussions about this are fruitless. You insist that you're correct because you say so. You refuse to acknowledge that living in a home with loving family is a better solution than living on the street.

[bobbolink]

118. You refuse to admit that low-income housing is the primary cause of homelessness

and shipping people across the country, as was done with Katrina victims, is a sham.

YOU are the one being irrational.... denying the obvious concerning homelessness.

YOU need to be homeless and be on the receiving end of your laughing at others pain.

One thing I agree with you on.... it's pointless to continue to talk with someone who is this heartless and judgmental.

Go turn on your Fox news.

[Renew Deal]

141. No I don't.

I'll say it again. Affordable housing is one of the major causes of homelessness. But that has nothing to do with whether the Bloomberg idea is good or bad. This is not an all or nothing, black and white world.

You say that I am laughing at others, heartless, and judgmental. But I think that it's a good thing that people are given money to leave the street and move in with welcoming family. Do you agree that being given money to live with family is a good thing and preferable to indefinite homelessness? The question isn't a personal attack.

[Fire1]

131. Who determines that the homeless have family in other

places willing to take them in? Is the state taking their word for it and giving them the money or looking up these relatives themselves?

[Renew Deal]

142. My understanding from the article is that the NYC department of homeless services

is doing the legwork on this. They make the arrangements with the family and pay for the transportation. The article says that the family must accept.

[Skipperoo]

112. Yes. For a small number this is good

550 individuals or families is a tiny drop in the bucket. But I'll bet they were happy and surprised to have this solution offered to them.

[Ocracoker16]

124. just take a look at the first paragraph of the definition of homelessness you posted

Do you remember that quote from Wikipedia? Here it is.

Homelessness is the condition and social category of people who lack housing, because they cannot afford, pay for, or are otherwise unable or unwilling to maintain regular, safe, and adequate housing.

There are plenty of links, but it seems wise to start with something you yourself posted to make a point.

[Number23]

154. How in the world are "affordable housing" and "homelessness" two seperate issues to you??

How in the heck do you explain that type of thinking?

[babylonsister]

8. The article also said...

What we're doing is passing the problem of homelessness to another city. We're taking people from a shelter bed here to the living room couch of another family. Essentially, this family is still homeless."


If you don't see what's wrong with this, I can't help you. What happens after their first big fight because they're laying on that couch too long? They become someone else's problem. And no, the city isn't putting a roof over their heads. They're depending on the kindness of others.

Will NY take them back if this plan falls through? I don't think so.

[Renew Deal]

21. That's a quote from a critic of the program and guess what...

He's wrong.

The family is no longer homeless. They have a home. Now they stand a chance of rebuilding a life for themselves. That's not really possible from the street or even a shelter.

What happens after the first big fight? Hopefully they work it out. Being someone else's problem isn't necessarily a bad thing.

The argument of whether the city is putting a roof over their head is ultimately pointless, but the city deserves a lot of credit for proactively trying to put people into homes. This is a very good thing for the people involved (and apparently the city too).

Will NYC take them back? Of course we will, but their situation will be worse on the streets of NY than in a relatives home.

[babylonsister]

40. So you're right and

Arnold Cohen, head of a New York campaign group, Partnership for the Homeless, is wrong. No, he just doesn't want to sweep the problem out of the city unlike some NYers. Must be really inconvenient to have to walk over or around them instead of finding them a decent place to live. Much easier to just ship them off.

Sorry, I think the city deserves no credit. Have you ever had to house a relative for an indefinite amount of time? You might think differently.

And don't be too quick to assume NYC will take them back. Will they pay the airfare? I highly doubt it.

[Renew Deal]

44. Housing a relative for an indefinite period of time is still better for the relative

than living on the street. They have a home. They have an address. They hopefully have clean clothes and warm meals. They have a chance to find a job. Those things are nearly impossible when you live on the street.

[babylonsister]

53. You still haven't addressed what happens when their invite

is rescinded. They become someone else's problem, which is the intent of NY. And that one-way ticket means something; NY is trying to get rid of them.

It's not real humane imo.

[Renew Deal]

57. You still haven't addressed all the other scenarios.

Is their invite being rescinded the only outcome? What else can happen? Are any of the outcomes positive?

How is taking someone off the street and putting them into an accepting families home "inhumane?"

[Renew Deal]

61. I love how the people that argue people will be "thrown out"

Aren't willing to consider the other outcomes. The silence is telling.

[babylonsister]

68. I went to lunch. Is that okay with you?

And what if they are thrown out? That is a possible scenario, but you don't care to consider that, because living in NY, it's no longer your problem, is it.

[Renew Deal]

89. Did you ask permission???

:D

I wasn't referring to you specifically. I have considered that the arrangement might not work out. Have you considered that it might work out? I think you miss the difference between you and I. You live in Houston, so you don't care if these people remain on the street. I live in NY, so I have an interest in a positive outcome.

[noamnety]

128. It's posts like the one you are responding to

that prompted me to write this recently:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x8942910#8942917

That last paragraph sound familiar? :D

[Renew Deal]

143. An excuse for intellectual dishonesty.

I wasn't referring to any one person. So far, not a single person that is criticizing idea is willing to acknowledge that people are better off in a loving home than the street.

[mdmc]

29. If they family makes it back to NYC

there will be a park bench for them.

NYC used to have a homeless shelter in Orange County NY (about 60 miles away). I often wondered how they got the homeless to leave the city and live up here. The shelter was pretty beat, and now no longer exists.

[Fumesucker]

22. Ever had someone else living in your home with you?

I've put up relatives several times in my life, at the very best it's stressful.

My ex wife's sister in law lived with us a couple of times, after the last time it took me well over a year before the sound of her laughter didn't literally make the hair stand up on the back of my neck. Paying no bills at all she took two long hot showers a day, which made both our water and gas bills soar, she routinely adjust the thermostat without consulting us if she felt too hot or cold, she took whatever food she wanted from the refrigerator, often food that we were saving for ourselves and her footsteps were elephantine, the entire house shook every time she walked around.

To top it off, at the end of her stay we found out she had more money saved than we had the entire time she was with us.

I suspect a lot of these living arrangements that people are shipping out of NY for are going to be purely temporary, for no other reason than that the family members putting up the homeless are going to get tired of them and eventually kick them out.

Edited for grammar.

[Renew Deal]

31. That's pretty much a worst case scenario.

And it's still better than living on the street.

[Fumesucker]

46. Have you ever had someone else live in your home with you?

You didn't answer the question..

[Renew Deal]

48. Yes

:shrug:

The only time it's been an issue is if they are a smoker. Then we have to suggest they smoke outside.

[Fumesucker]

52. So it wasn't permanent..

Try having someone in your home for years, it's really difficult and seldom lasts.

Just because someone is family doesn't mean you can stand having them around on full time basis forever.

[Renew Deal]

58. So?

You'd rather leave people on the street?

[Scout]

152. "yeah, i know you're family, but it sucks having you live here with me....

so why don't you just go back to being homeless."

:eyes:

[bobbolink]

95. Tell ya what... you be homeless for a year, then come back and report to us.

Are you just here to rankel?

Dust up a fight?

Is that the deal?

[Renew Deal]

96. So you believe that living on the street is a better situation than living in a home?

Because that's what you're implying.

[bobbolink]

98. You know, that kind of sillyness doesn't even deserve an answer.

I will repeat..... READ the actual information about homelessness instead of relying on Fox News for your "information", then try being homeless for a year and putting up with the kind of ignorance you are trying to peddle.

[Renew Deal]

102. lol

Where did I use "fox news" for a source? You try being homeless for a year and we'll see if you're not begging to move in with an accepting family member.

[bobbolink]

105. Look, fox newsie... I AM homeless, which is why your ignorance is so insulting.

You haven't a CLUE, but you are acting as if you know it all.

Then you add insult to ignorance.

GROW A HEART.

[Renew Deal]

110. What are you doing on a computer if you're homeless?

How or why would you pay for that?

You say you're homeless. Where do you go to sleep at night?

I think that it's better for people to live in a home with family than on the street or in a shelter. Do you agree? Spare the hysterics and answer the question.

[bobbolink]

116. I don't owe you personal answers... I've been stalked by a DUer before

and I won't give personal info ever again.

And again, your ignorance is showing. You are trying to paint me as a liar, rather than show one teensy bit of compassion, and those who are watching this conversation now KNOW what you are.

And calling my homelessness "hysterics" is about as ugly as it gets.

There is no further use in saying ANYTHING to you. There is no capacity for compassion within you, and others who are reading this exchange can see that.

[Renew Deal]

145. You're right.

I don't want you to compromise your personal information. I haven't "painted you as a liar." You brought up your situation and I asked you about it. I think that helping people get into a loving family home is compassionate. I am not calling your homelessness "hysterics", I'm calling your responses hysterics. And I love the new load of personal attacks your hurl my way. You can say what you want about me, but your view that people are better off on the street than with family is the truly cruel.

[Scout]

153. personally, as one of the "others" reading this thread

i find your comments to be much more insulting.

[noamnety]

120. You should rely less on stereotypes

and spend less time lecturing those who are homeless on how it is to be homeless.

Also, as has been pointed out, you should spend less time demanding personal information from DUers. Bobbolink was too polite to point this out - but when you post question after personal question, and phrase your dialog as imperatives "Answer the question" - it's not the other person who ends up looking hysterical.

[bobbolink]

121. Thank you. Most people don't realize that homeless people are the victims of profiling and

stereotyping just as much as racial minorities are.

I didn't point out some of the more egregious behavior to this poster because I think this poster is getting his/her kicks out of causing pain.

I very much appreciate you explaining some of what should be obvious to anyone who considers themselves "aware".

:applause:

[Renew Deal]

146. lol

I didn't "demand personal information" from anyone. This person brought up their situation. I thought they wanted to discuss it. I've been repeatedly personally attacked this person. To say that some of their responses are over the top is an understatement.

[Ocracoker16]

123. the idea that homeless people don't have internet access is further proof of your complete ignorance

Have you ever been to a public library? You can use the computers to go on the internet. I know many homeless people that do that. There are also other opportunities to use the internet without owning a computer.

[Cassandra]

14. Excuse me but...

in the past, some 40% of the people on welfare in NYC had come from other states (they didn't come for welfare, they came for a job and that didn't work out). If there is no job for them here and if they see no way they are going to climb out of their predicament and have relatives elsewhere, why not help them get to where they might be better off. Or did you want them hanging out on the street or shuttling between shelters until they go crazy or die of exposure? I often see homeless looking for money for a bus ticket home and some families from out of state have been searching for lost family members here (and sometimes find them). Just because you think we are dumping our problems elsewhere doesn't mean that that impression is true.

[Terry in Austin]

67. You're right, of course

Case by case, dealing with homelessness -- or more exactly, its symptoms -- still has do be done. Certainly, in many cases, there is in fact a home "elsewhere" that they can go back to, and the outcome in those particular cases will represent some sort of improvement.

At a general policy level, though, the principle of "let's just send them away" doesn't do much to address the root problems of homelessness, and is more than a little self-serving, imo.

And no, I don't think it's just NYC that tries to externalize its social costs -- it seems to be more or less universal. NYC is probably better than most, actually.

[Fire1]

132. Guess what? If there are no jobs in NYC what makes you

think there's any to be had anywhere else?? If they come to Michigan they are SOL!

[Cassandra]

135. I'm sure that...

since they are moving in with family, they know the situation where they are going.

[Fire1]

136. Which could very likely lead them back to square one but

only in a different location. That is not a solution in the best interest of the homeless and neither is living on the street. The best solution is low income housing, imo.

[Dr_Willie_Feelgood]

64. Private Ownership Of Housing...

...has got to go in the trashbin of history!

Along with health care, food, shelter, and clothing are human needs and therefore human rights. And NOBODY should have the right to make a profit while denying these things to others.

All the land, houses, buildings, offices, EVERYTHING should be owned by THE PEOPLE (as represented by the Federal government), and allocated according to need. Not by who has been most successful at ripping off "We The People".

[Cassandra]

74. That only works on a small scale...

such as American Indian tribes. That wouldn't work in a large country (see: Soviet Union and dashas). Do you really want to debate "need" with whiny-assed Republicans? :eyes:

[leftynyc]

92. Communism?

No fucking thanks. Who gets to decide who needs what? Rush? Hannity? And on the other side, I don't need anyone telling me I make too much money and they decide to take it away.

That said, this program only addresses a short term solution. I think living with a relative is better than living on the streets but I've been fortunate that I've never had to do either. Affordable housing in New York is a very old problem that neither party has seen fit to address.

[snooper2]

150. There is a commune in Virginia you can move to

let me know how that works out for ya :rofl:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Oaks_Community

[petronius]

126. The article does point out that people can choose to accept (or not) the tickets, I did not

get the sense that people who declined were treated any differently by the city.

What struck me was that the examples cited in the article were people who recently travelled to NYC expecting to find jobs and housing but not succeeding. Helping them return home seems like a win-win approach to me...

[Renew Deal]

3. Sounds like a good idea

Take homeless people and put them into homes. I don't see what's wrong with that. The headline and beginning of the article is written in a way that gets people excited.

[Raineyb]

6. They're not putting them into homes

They're pushing them into someone else's jurisdiction. What they should be doing is more to make sure there's affordable housing but Bloomberg has never been interested in that as evidenced by his picks for the Rent Guidelines Board who has been pushing outrageous rent increases on rent stabilized renters despite the economy squeezing people on both ends.

[Renew Deal]

15. They are putting them into homes

"Families can qualify for the tickets if they have a relative in another part of the world, including the US, who says they are willing to house them."

Affordable housing is a red herring. Affordable housing would still not be "affordable" for someone that's already homeless.

[Raineyb]

25. Living on someone else's couch at someone's largess

is not the same as having a home.

And you damn well know that.

[Renew Deal]

28. Yes, but it doesn't mean they are "homeless"

And you damn well know that.

[Raineyb]

35. Only in the most literal sense.

If by not being homeless you mean "has some sort of roof over one's head." If one doesn't have a roof of one's own one is homeless. There are people who bounce from couch to couch. They're still homeless. You're being disingenuous. Just like Bloomberg.

[Renew Deal]

39. Your problem isn't the program

It's that Bloomberg thought of it. That's what's disingenuous about this entire argument.

[Raineyb]

47. My problem is the program. We should be doing more in this city to solve the problem of

unaffordable housing. Shipping people out so that there's less people trying to get the city to do something about that problem is not a solution.

But since you think you know so much why don't you have this discussion with yourself since you think you know more about my motives than I do.

Clearly I don't need to bother to express my own thoughts about shit going on in the city I fucking live in.

[Renew Deal]

54. Affordable housing is still a separate issues.

And I agree that the city (and the burbs) need to do more about affordable housing. It's almost impossible for a new family to purchase a home. The costs of NYC are extaordinary, but so are the salaries sometimes. That has nothing to do with whether this is a good program. And I live in NY too, on LI.

[Raineyb]

78. Long Island? Oh the island of people who come to our city and

use our services but cry when they are asked to pay for it in the form of city taxes?

You'll excuse me if I think that you don't have the best interests of the city in mind.

And the salaries aren't even keeping up with the price of inflation. Not all of us work in Manhattan and have high salaried jobs.

[Renew Deal]

90. More red herrings

What does that have to do with whether this is a good program? I'm in NYC 5 days a week and live a around 20 minutes from queens, so I have the best interests of my city and my people in mind. I find it funny that I'm getting lectured about people's "best interests" form omeone who prefers that people live on the streets over a family home.

[Skipperoo]

115. 550 families have been helped in three years

And this entire discussion revolves around why those very few people some demand MUST REMAIN IN NYC AT ALL COST whether they want to or not because some complete strangers insist they cannot possibly be happy going home.

Nonsense. A pitifully few 550 families want to go home and some would deny them the chance because that isn't the solution they want to see implemented. Doesn't make any sense. I'm happy that NYC has this program and I am sure those very few families are happy also.

[Raineyb]

137. Excuse you?

Either you're illiterate or a complete idiot but I never said anyting about people staying on the streets. I have said from my first comment that the issue is affordable housing. It has always been about affordable housing and shipping people off in order to avoid doing anything about affordable housing doesn't solve a damn thing.

And NYC is not your city as you've already admitted that you live in Long Island so piss off go back to your enclave and let those of us who live here deal with our government and their wrong-headed pseudo solutions to our problems.

You are even more disingenuous than I'd originally thought.

I'm done with you.

[Renew Deal]

147. Do you believe that people are better off on the street or in a welcoming home?

Because that's the entire issue here. You criticized the plan as not a solution to the problem of homelessness. Of course it's not a solution, but it's a way to make a number of people's lives better. Affordable housing is not relevant to whether this idea is a good idea. You seem to have a black and white view to this issue. This is a bad plan because we're not doing anything about affordable housing. In reality, this is good plan AND we need to do something about affordable housing.

And spare me the lecture about how this is not my city and not my problem. I'm here 5 days a week. I pay state and local taxes that go directly to these issues. And it's in my best interest that this issue is addressed.

[noamnety]

59. You're mistaken

I work in a school and students who are temporarily living at a relative's house because their family has lost their home are classified as homeless - even though there is technically a roof over their heads.

[Renew Deal]

60. Not technically and not practically either

At least according to this definition

"Homelessness is the condition and social category of people who lack housing, because they cannot afford, pay for, or are otherwise unable to maintain regular, safe, and adequate housing.

The term homelessness may also include people whose primary nighttime residence is in a homeless shelter, in an institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized, or in a public or private place not designed for use as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness

Either way, technically and practically are very different things.

[noamnety]

65. Clearly our school should be using the wikipedia definition

instead of following state and federal laws in determining homelessness. I will be sure to pass that along to our administration.

[Raineyb]

77. That one isn't really interested in facts. n/t

[Renew Deal]

91. Please post the state and federal laws.

I at least provided some form of reference. What have you provided?

[noamnety]

100. I provided actual knowledge of the issue

based on having worked with the law, which it sounds like you haven't - so I don't know why you are setting yourself up like some sort of expert based on reading a paragraph on wikipedia.

This is the pertinent part of the definition for the google-impaired:

DEFINITION OF HOMELESS
(Stewart B. McKinney-Bruce Vento Homeless Assistance Act)
Subtitle B of Title VII of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (Title X, Part C, of the No Child Left Behind Act)
The term "homeless children and youths"--
(A) means individuals who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence (within the meaning of section 103(a)(1)); and
(B) includes--
(i) children and youths who are sharing the housing of other persons due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason;

http://www.broward.k12.fl.us/dpc/DPC%2008-09/homeless/DEFINITION%20OF%20HOMELESS.pdf

"The changing character of homelessness means that children and youth in homeless situations
often do not fit society’s stereotypical images. Only 33% of students experiencing homelessness
live in shelters. Most students share housing with friends or relatives or stay in motels or other
temporary facilities."

http://www.isbe.state.il.us/homeless/pdf/title1_parta_homeless.pdf

Your insistence on the wrong definition is not unlike people promoting false information from chain emails. In this case it is particularly damaging because it promotes the idea that people (especially children) aren't entitled to the benefits that they are supposed to get, by law.

[Renew Deal]

114. Here's the federal definition

The United States Code contains the official federal definition of homeless. In Title 42, Chapter 119, Subchapter I, homeless is defined as:

§11302. General definition of homeless individual
(a) In general
For purposes of this chapter, the term “homeless” or “homeless individual or homeless person” includes—
an individual who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; and

an individual who has a primary nighttime residence that is —

a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill);

an institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or

a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.
(b) Income eligibility
In general
A homeless individual shall be eligible for assistance under any program provided by this chapter, only if the individual complies with the income eligibility requirements otherwise applicable to such program.


Exception
Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a homeless individual shall be eligible for assistance under title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 <29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.>.
(c) Exclusion
For purposes of this chapter, the term “homeless” or “homeless individual” does not include any individual imprisoned or otherwise detained pursuant to an Act of the Congress or a State law.

http://www.hud.gov/homeless/definition.cfm

[noamnety]

119. That's further clarified in the Stewart B. McKinney-Bruce Vento Homeless Assistance Act

which I quoted.

Are you disputing the existence of that legislation?

[Raineyb]

79. You are wrong. And the government definition is not the one used by

Wikipedia which BTW is not the end all to be all of places to go for definitions. It is by the nature of what it is, prone to error and propaganda.

[Renew Deal]

93. Post the government definition.

Lets get on an even playing field.

[noamnety]

101. Please see my post above with the law quoted. (nt)

[Ocracoker16]

125. you seem to be prone to error yourself

[Raineyb]

138. So far I've been correct.

[Raineyb]

4. Well it's only a matter of time before NYC is doing the same for anyone who isn't uber wealthy

At least that seems to be the attitude of Bloomberg who seems to be well on his way of ignoring the will of the people when they voted for term limits.

(I voted against them but once they were put into place for Bloomberg to push the City Council to overturn them so he can be king of NYC for another term is absolutely despicable.)

[paulsby]

9. $36k for a year for a family in the shelter???

that's 3k a month. are you frigging kidding me?

[Cassandra]

17. The building owners...

and motel owners make a nice living off the city.

[paulsby]

18. send em to buffalo

they could pay the mortgage on a kick-ass house for 3k a month. i'm just saying it SOUNDS insane.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

19. Many homeless families are priced out of their apartments and if the city subsidized the rents,

I bet millions of dollars would be saved.

[Cassandra]

75. That's where the argument for affordable housing comes in.

Some are priced out, some are burned out, some can't handle the day-to-day (or month-to-month)of paying rent and utilities, and some have lost jobs and can't replace them. Affordable housing would help many but not all. Since Reagan, there's been precious little affordable housing built.

[greguganus]

$3000.00 a month? I'll take one family for my basement, please. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

73. not unusual at all with motel vouchers. it would be cheaper to put them in permanent housing.

funny how they don't, eh?

homelessness = good for profits.

[CC]

10. Novel? BS

NYC used to bus the homeless to Florida in the winter all the time.

[Blue_Tires]

45. Atlanta did this too back in the 90s

but they just gave bus tickets and didn't care WHERE you went

[Buzz Clik]

11. Sending them to Paris? I thought they were going to South Park.

[KDFW]

12. Are they forcing these people to take the money?

I don't think so.

[Wickerman]

13. Looks like a solid program

"Families can qualify for the tickets if they have a relative in another part of the world, including the US, who says they are willing to house them.

Since the $500,000-a-year scheme was launched in 2007, 550 homeless families have been paid to leave the city. None have come back.

"We want to divert as many families as we can that need assistance," Vida Chavez-Downes, a city official said."

Not near as sensational as the headline would have you believe. Rather, the City is acting to help people find homes where they have family that can lend a hand.

[Fumesucker]

24. See my post #22 upthread...

Move someone else into your home for a while and let us know how it works out, I've done it several times in my life and it's always stressful at the best.

[Wickerman]

30. Sounds like you've had some bad experiences

Its great that you helped people out, though. Sorry you got burned. I have no doubt its stressful, I've been in similar situations and it really is difficult. That said, I'd rather see folks go to family than live in the streets of big and lethal city.

[SoCalDem]

33. "willing to help" is the key phrase.. All they have to do is say "no", when asked

problem solved.

[Fumesucker]

50. You seldom know what you are getting into..

Like I said, a lot of these people are going to be homeless again. Homeless where they do not know the area..

[KDFW]

37. Nobody is forcing anybody to take them in.

:shrug:

[Fumesucker]

56. Seldom do you know what you are actually getting into..

I know I didn't..

In fact I'm living with my daughter and son in law now and I feel that I'm close to wearing out my welcome, I've asked several times if this is the case and neither one will tell me either way.

I have nowhere else to go if I'm forced to leave here.

[Fire1]

133. Did they invite you to stay with them? If they did, I think that's

a different situation, entirely. Parents living with their grown children is not a new concept. The economy has forced the return of the extended family, which I think is a good thing.

[FSogol]

20. Novel idea? This was big city standard operating procedure before WWII

The police would put alcoholics, the homeless and prostitutes on the bus out of town with a few bucks in their pocket.

[Moochy]

49. Yeah some sloppy reporting

Shipping homeless up to upstate new york with one way tickets was how Giuliani tackled homelessness downtown back in the late 90's.

[SoCalDem]

26. In some cases this may be the most humane thing to do

I can envision the scenario where someone goes to the big city, seeking their fortune, and instead finds heartbreak and destitution. No one will loan/give them the money to go "home", so they stay, trying to eke out a living, and getting further behind every day.

If they have family somewhere else, and can go there to get back on their feet, why not..

[2Design]

34. yes they are still homeless until they are putting a roof over their

own head

[Raineyb]

51. Indeed. But apparently that concept is too difficult for some to fathom. n/t

[Renew Deal]

62. Yes, because you're wrong.

:shrug:

"Homelessness is the condition and social category of people who lack housing, because they cannot afford, pay for, or are otherwise unable to maintain regular, safe, and adequate housing.

The term homelessness may also include people whose primary nighttime residence is in a homeless shelter, in an institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized, or in a public or private place not designed for use as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness

[2Design]

82. your definition says they are homeless - because they can not pay

living on someones couch or temporary is homeless - so what are you saying here to the above poster who seemed to agree that people are still homeless when living in a temporary situation with friends or relatives

[Renew Deal]

94. Read it again

It says they are homeless because they "lack housing."

[2Design]

129. "because they cannot afford, pay for" - read what your wrote

[onenote]

71. so does the fact that my adult brother lives under the same roof with my elderly father

make one or both them "homeless" in your view?

[2Design]

80. If it is done for care taking or as a permanent solution than NO n/t

[onenote]

81. how do i know whether its a "permanent" solution

any more than someone taking in a homeless family member from NY and giving them a place to live?

[2Design]

83. oh so you just want to argue - go find a right winger to do that with

they have circular logic too - you can understand what I said - teenagers use this back and forth to break parents down - no further answers for you - you obvious don't want to understand ---- go fishing in Alaska

[onenote]

88. nice talk -- project much?

I asked a question for which you don't have an answer so you resort to name calling? Pretty clear to me which one of us is the adolescent

[2Design]

130. ah yes - the only answer for you is - your right - even though really you are not - enough for now -

bye

[onenote]

134. mr. I don't have an answer wastes our time some more

buh-bye

[The empressof all]

55. Greyhound Therapy has been used for years

Many times it's helpful both to the client and to the "system". When I lived in NY and starting out in "social services" we used The Travelers Aid Society to get people back to their preferred communities. If someone wants to go "home" I have no issue with using funds for this.

Believe me this happens throughout the country in one form or another. This is not unique to NY.

[TheCoxwain]

63. Send them to the red states.....

[FarCenter]

69. Why not send them to Florida, Arizona, California or Nevada

Where there are all those empty houses.

[onenote]

70. Is anyone being forced to buy a ticket?

There's a lot of discussion on this thread that doesn't make a lot of sense. Unless I misunderstand the initiative -- and maybe i do -- its not as if the city is telling people they have to take the ticket and get out of town.

And for those that say this is just passing the homeless off to family members who may get tired of them, again, no one has a gun to their head. Or to put the issue differently, would those who think its worse for these folks to move in with a relative support restrictions on housing that prevented a family from having non-immediate family members living with them -- that said, in effect, if you don't have your own place to live, you have to be in a shelter or on the street because we don't want you living with extended family because its stressful and eventually they might toss you out anyway? Of course no one would support that. So what exactly is the big deal about offering some assitance to people so they can get to where they have family with whom they might live? That they're giving up their life in NYC? THey're homeless in NYC and they don't have to do this if they don't want to.

[Skipperoo]

122. Nobody is forced and they are told they may come back

It's a good program that helps a few families - 550 out of tens of thousands.

I wish more folks would look at the good side instead of immediately say "What's wrong with this picture."

[ohheckyeah]

76. This may not be a perfect program

but I think that it would be a lifeline to some people who are homeless. Would that more families would open their arms and embrace and help the down and out in the family.

Could more be done to help the homeless? Of course it could, but this is one measure that might help some on their way to having a home of their own.

I know firsthand what it is like to have a family member or members live with me. My sister and her son lived with me for 3 years. Yes, at times it was stressful, but we worked on things and worked it out until she had a good enough job to support the both of them. She moved close by so I could continue to help her out when she needed it and eventually she married, has a lovely home of her own and 3 children - one in high school, one in college and one grown and married with 3 children of his own.

[and-justice-for-all]

84. I can see this being ok...

because I can agree to this: "Families can qualify for the tickets if they have a relative in another part of the world, including the US, who says they are willing to house them." "One homeless family of five was given $6,332 (nearly £4,000) worth of travel costs to Paris, according to the New York Times."


As long as some one is taking them in then I am ok with it. But just dumping them off somewhere is not acceptable.

[KamaAina]

85. There was a move out here to do that at the state level

of course, for years it's been rumored that other states have been sending their homeless people here, because a) "those aloha people will take care of them" :eyes: and b) it's that much less likely they'll return.

[Stevenmarc]

87. A free trip to Paris and the French healthcare system, sign me up

[BlooInBloo]

104. I would like to be rich someday, but if I end up like Bloomberg, I trust one of you good people...

Will just put me down.

[Cleita]

113. In Los Angeles County, which is a patchwork of city, incorporated small

cities and county areas, the police used to take homeless men and dump them over in the next city. One guy, who was passed out drunk, was picked up in Santa Monica and taken to Brentwood, where the police picked him up and took him to the next town. When he woke up he found himself twenty five miles away east of Los Angeles. Why does this remind me of the same thing? They don't want to look after them so they dump the problem on someone else.

[Livvia82]

127. I dont see anything wrong with it.

I dont see anything wrong with Bloomberg sending them away. I was a New Yorker and I was homeless. Living in NY is hard, cost of living is high and so is the rent i was living in Far Rockaway paying 1,600 a month for a 3 bedroom. I had to pay 3 times the rent just to move in the deposit and the security. Oh and by the way i had to pay utlities too. I went to a shelter and then i moved to Virginia . I finally left because i could not afford it and moved to Virginia stayed with my family and got on my feet. The point i am trying to make it is NY is a hard place to live if you cant afford it the rent is extremely high. It is easier for someone to go to a place where it is cheaper to live than try to live there. Also, there is not enough affordable housing in NYC and public housing has a waiting list. So it may smarter to leave than stay in a shelter for a year. And what happens when you do get in to an apartment after staying in the shelter who says you can really afford the rent then?

[Raineyb]

139. And what if what little family you have are in NYC?

Some of us didn't move here we've always been here. It doesn't solve the problem to ship people off to make them the problem of another locale and Bloomberg isn't doing shit so actually solve the problem.

He is making it easier for his rich cronies to pretend that there aren't any homeless around I suppose but that's not really a solution.

[Renew Deal]

149. Then you move in with family in NYC?

I think there are two issues with your comment. This plan is not meant to "solve the problem." It's a way to make a few people's lives better. That's a good thing. My point in this thread has never been that Bloomberg is or isn't trying to solve the problem. It's been singularly that people are better off in a home with a chance to build a life than on the street.

My other issue with your comment is that it seems like your dislike of Bloomberg is coloring jading your view.

[sofa king]

144. How did they run off all the homeless in 2004?

Didn't all the homeless people disappear for the duration of the GOP convention? How'd they do that?

[Renew Deal]

148. I think that incident (and others) have jaded people.

Busing people out of town with nowhere to go truly is a problem. This plan isn't. It's a fine temporary (or not) solution for a few people. It gives them a chance to build a life. That's a good thing.

[sofa king]

151. Is that what they did?

Did they bus them all out of town, or did they pen them up somewhere, or toss them in jail for the week? I really don't know.

I myself very nearly went homeless in 2005, and it was only through the good graces of my family that I now have a place to live, so I'm not opposed to the idea.

However, I also view it as a major concession of a government's duty to provide basic services for its constituents. Shipping them out solves nothing. It doesn't address the mental issues so many homeless people have. It doesn't address the absurd housing crisis New York has. It doesn't address the plain-as-day fact that the United States has no social safety net except to those who can pay more to an insurer than that insurer ever pays back out. It won't keep the next crop of Iraq and Afghanistan vets from filling the vacated positions. It doesn't address the fact that the impoverished of America are regularly nickeled-and-dimed into homelessness, the result of predatory banking practices and the myriad other schemes designed to part the desperate from their money before they spin out.

So while I'm not opposed to the idea, I think that everyone should realize that it's an idea, not a solution to the problems which underpin the issue of homelessness.