Home
Log in / Sign Up
    Private Messages   Advanced Search   Rules   New User Guide   FAQ   Advertise   Contact Us  
Forum -> Inquiries & Offers -> New York related Inquiries
Massive amounts of homeless people being moved to Boro Park
  Previous  1  2  3 8 9  10  11  Next



Post new topic   Reply to topic View latest: 24h 48h 72h

SixOfWands




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jan 19 2021, 11:04 am
leah233 wrote:
To affluent liberal suburbs with space to build homeless shelters. That is where they are wanted...


These buildings will not be homeless shelters. Shelters are transient housing. They will be low income permanent housing offered to people who have been homeless, in return for tax abatements REQUESTED BY THE LANDLORD.
Back to top

amother
Denim


 

Post Tue, Jan 19 2021, 11:05 am
SixOfWands wrote:
Yeah, yeah, its always the "liberals."

This is 100% the decision of the building owners. Blame them if you want to blame someone.

I looked up a couple of the buildings and believe that the owners bought them a few years ago before the rent stabilization laws were put in place in 2019. It also looks like some of the apartments are renovated so they could be rented out but if the buildings are rent stabilized then not sure if the owners would even make money. So no, you cant blame the owners because the laws are ridiculous and the only way to make money is to do something shady like this otherwise they are stuck with a useless building that is high in taxes but low in income.
I am not sure if turning it into a condo and selling each apartment separately would be more profitable for the owners but maybe someone should suggest that at the meeting and see what they say. Alternatively, the community could raise money and buy out the owners then put their own people in but you would need to have rich investors for it and I am not sure if Jews in Boro Park have that kind of money these days. So either the owners will be stuck in a bad situation or the Boro Park community will be in the bad situation. Not sure what the actual solution is (other than voting out the democrats and putting in lawmakers that wouldnt hurt us on a daily basis but this is liberal/blue NY we are talking about so our votes dont mean much anymore). Oh well.
Back to top

amother
Seashell


 

Post Tue, Jan 19 2021, 11:10 am
Who owns these buildings?
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jan 19 2021, 11:11 am
amother [ Denim ] wrote:
I looked up a couple of the buildings and believe that the owners bought them a few years ago before the rent stabilization laws were put in place in 2019. It also looks like some of the apartments are renovated so they could be rented out but if the buildings are rent stabilized then not sure if the owners would even make money. So no, you cant blame the owners because the laws are ridiculous and the only way to make money is to do something shady like this otherwise they are stuck with a useless building that is high in taxes but low in income.
I am not sure if turning it into a condo and selling each apartment separately would be more profitable for the owners but maybe someone should suggest that at the meeting and see what they say. Alternatively, the community could raise money and buy out the owners then put their own people in but you would need to have rich investors for it and I am not sure if Jews in Boro Park have that kind of money these days. So either the owners will be stuck in a bad situation or the Boro Park community will be in the bad situation. Not sure what the actual solution is (other than voting out the democrats and putting in lawmakers that wouldnt hurt us on a daily basis but this is liberal/blue NY we are talking about so our votes dont mean much anymore). Oh well.


Rent stablilization has existed in NYC in some form since 1950, and the Rent Stabilization Law was passed in 1969.

You must think that these owners are morons. They're not. They're investors who know exactly what they're doing.
Back to top

amother
Denim


 

Post Tue, Jan 19 2021, 11:16 am
SixOfWands wrote:
Rent stablilization has existed in NYC in some form since 1950, and the Rent Stabilization Law was passed in 1969.

You must think that these owners are morons. They're not. They're investors who know exactly what they're doing.

The Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 is one of the most strictest and draconian rules that the democrats put in making it impossible for owners of rent stabilized buildings to make money off their property. So no, you cant blame the investors who didnt know that the rules will change one day down the line, you can only blame the democrats (and the people who voted for them) who took advantage of having a one party state and put in crazy rules that make it impossible for landlords to make a real profit (combined with the high taxes of course).
Back to top

amother
Mauve


 

Post Tue, Jan 19 2021, 11:21 am
SixOfWands wrote:
Rent stablilization has existed in NYC in some form since 1950, and the Rent Stabilization Law was passed in 1969.

You must think that these owners are morons. They're not. They're investors who know exactly what they're doing.


Normal rent stabilization is around for a while, but rents were always raised, within limit.

In very recent years, the rent raise amounts are 0 or 1 percent.

Also, there’s a newish law that even when a tenant moves out, you cannot raise the rent for the new tenant.
This is killing landlords, giving them no money to renovate apartments, or do any kind of service for the building.

So apartments that went for $2900 5 years ago, you must keep at the $1450 now when a tenant moves out. (Numbers are made up, just examples)

This results in lower living conditions, lower quality of life in a once prosperous NY.

Are you aware of the laws in NYC at all? It doesn’t seem like you do.

We own multiple housing developments throughout NYC, and so did my parents, so I’ve known the field since I was little.
Back to top

amother
Denim


 

Post Tue, Jan 19 2021, 11:34 am
amother [ Seashell ] wrote:
Who owns these buildings?

The ones that I looked at have LLC's. For example, 5001 10 Ave in Brooklyn lists the owner as 5001 10TH LLC. When I googled the LLC the following showed up- https://whoownswhat.justfix.ny.....VENUE

You can look into the other buildings by first finding the block and lot (go to find addresses and parcels on acris and put in address and city, then you can find the deed using the block and lot by going to property records and and then parcel identifier and put in block and lot and city and look for the last deed) https://a836-acris.nyc.gov/CP/.....nMenu

Once you find the owner which will presumably be an LLC for the other ones as well, you can google the LLC and hope the owner shows up on it.
Back to top

amother
Natural


 

Post Tue, Jan 19 2021, 11:39 am
SixOfWands wrote:
They are vetted, but I have no clue what the vetting includes.

Again, though, NYC cannot force private landlords to accept these programs. The building owners are requesting tax abatements, in return for which they do this. Not NYC, the landlords.


Once again, I have stated what vetting means. Nothing about history of violence. The only drug crimes they care about are meth production. They don't care about sobriety. They mostly look to make sure they qualify for low income housing. Not much more than that. Oh, and they do prioritize "high users of the system"- meaning hose who are drug/alcohol addicts, use the ER a lot, people who have been in psych units...
Back to top

turca




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jan 19 2021, 11:50 am
amother [ Purple ] wrote:
None of us are making these policies but there is a simple question, to which neighborhood should the homeless go?

Gracie mansion
Back to top

watergirl




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jan 19 2021, 12:08 pm
Due fair housing laws, anti-discrimination laws, segregation being a bad thing, and ghettos being a bad thing, I do understand why we cant just “send them all upstate” or whatever. Also, we know that kids who grow up in the ghetto are statistically very likely to continue to live that lifestyle, and we’ve seen how moving people out of their inner city ghetto has helped change lives and improved everything for them and therefor for society. These are facts. Also, I am sure we all agree that restricting low income housing to specific locations is very much not in our own interest because that would mean frum people on section 8 would also suffer those consequences.

This is one of those times where many things can be true at the same time, even when the truth conflict. This is one of those times. The whole thing is very hard.

Thank you to those who took the time to explain the whole situation.
Back to top

amother
Mauve


 

Post Tue, Jan 19 2021, 12:31 pm
watergirl wrote:
Due fair housing laws, anti-discrimination laws, segregation being a bad thing, and ghettos being a bad thing, I do understand why we cant just “send them all upstate” or whatever. Also, we know that kids who grow up in the ghetto are statistically very likely to continue to live that lifestyle, and we’ve seen how moving people out of their inner city ghetto has helped change lives and improved everything for them and therefor for society. These are facts. Also, I am sure we all agree that restricting low income housing to specific locations is very much not in our own interest because that would mean frum people on section 8 would also suffer those consequences.

This is one of those times where many things can be true at the same time, even when the truth conflict. This is one of those times. The whole thing is very hard.

Thank you to those who took the time to explain the whole situation.



It’s very different when spread out of over the years, individual low income families moved into one same neighborhood.
Every neighborhood will have those.

Here, they’re taking quite a few buildings, with many dilapidated apartments, which decent people won’t live in, and giving it to these homeless people, so many at once.

If they’d move in 2-3 of them, we’d have no choice but to accept it, but dozens? That’s frightening.
Back to top

Rappel




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jan 19 2021, 12:33 pm
amother [ Natural ] wrote:
Will you listen to someone who WORKS in this field? Who has worked people who slept in tents, in a car, under an overpass etc last night?? True homeless people. Who has tried to help navigate the systems to help clients get services, get Medicaid, get to a doctor or dentist...? And yes, find housing. It is a mess of a system.

Like I said, screening doesn't mean much. They will accept criminals and felons into government housing/low income housing/voucher programs etc as long as they aren't methamphetamine manufacturers ("cooks") or distributors. Cocaine dealers are fine. Heroin dealers- yep, fine too. For some reason there is a differentiation for meth. They will have to find other housing if it is too close to a school etc if there is a child molestation conviction but they aren't banned the same way.
In my professional experience- most long term homeless have either addiction and/or mental health issues. Many have both (dual diagnosis individuals are more common than the lay person might think). They definitely don't screen out for those. They specifically serve those individuals.
Most homeless families find housing. Those little kids on the brochures are a tiny segment of the homeless sleeping under the overpass in a cardboard tent population. The families might be homeless if they have no permanent housing arrangement but "couch surf" or live in a car. Or moved in with Grandma, in someone's garage etc. and these families do need help, don't get me wrong. There are housing sites specifically for them. Maybe this is one but most of them are not for families. They sometimes have a better support system. Or it is assumed and they fall through the cracks. We should help them but they aren't the vast majority so cities tend to focus on numbers.
Cities prioritize "cardboard box dwellers" over "living in a car".
They are not all violent. Might be scary for someone who never saw someone on meth before. Or detoxing from heroin. I am used to that... But addiction and mental health issues do put people up higher on the priority list.
Many can be nice upstanding citizens, no more crimes committed, with jobs etc. if they only got meds and stayed clean and sober. But these housing sites do not force it and do not always even offer services. No on site social worker or therapist. No place to get referrals to a psychiatrist, treatment, Doctor, or other help. And they lose their housing slot if they leave for drug treatment.
This is what I see. Not just rumors or newspaper articles.


Thank you. For the work you do. For the people whom fall through the cracks or society and have no other way to get back up
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jan 19 2021, 12:39 pm
amother [ Purple ] wrote:
What’s the solution? Where should they go?

This is an excellent question.

To start, we need to be honest about the problem. If you've never read Malcolm Gladwell's essay Million Dollar Murray, published first in the New Yorker and subsequently in one of his books, I highly recommend it.

One of the main points Gladwell makes is that there is a very small but persistent segment of the population that simply cannot live independently. Whether it's staying away from alcohol/drugs; taking meds; going to a job every day . . . these individuals cannot successfully do this without near-constant supervision.
____________________________________

This wasn't a huge chiddush to anyone in social services or law enforcement even when Gladwell's essay was published in 2006. Plenty of cities attempt to do this with "transitional living" or similar approaches. The problem is that their reach is greater than their grasp, and this is part of the concern over the Boro Park development.

Ideally in such arrangements, case workers follow a maximum of ten individuals. That allows multiple daily check-ins and immediate responses if a client begins slipping. But budget cuts and staffing problems can often result in a single case worker carrying a load of 50 or more.

Last night I took a look online at Camba Housing Ventures, the organization that is slated to manage the Boro Park initiative. I didn't count, but I grew weary of scrolling through what were easily 100 immediate job openings for "case managers," "case supervisors," and "on-site" employees.

This means that Camba Housing Ventures is stretched thin. They have a large number of contracts for similar housing projects and not enough people to actively manage or supervise them. Nor do they have enough people to actively work with clients. You can see where this is going.
____________________________________

The solution, I believe, comes in several parts:

* Ease zoning restrictions so that transitional living developments can be built in semi-industrial areas as opposed to already dense neighborhoods.

* Tweak existing laws to allow the chronically homeless to be "sentenced" or "committed" to these transitional facilities when necessary. A significant problem is that individuals over 18 have the right to simply walk away when they choose.

* Commit to maintaining a full staff despite the cost. That means on-site case workers and plenty of security.

* End enabling policies. California is currently in a free-fall as a result of this problem. I have a friend who is desperately trying to move out of the state: she had a drug-addicted couple literally camping in her backyard and was told repeatedly that she had no legal recourse. Nope. Sorry. Living on the street is not a lifestyle choice.

* End the ridiculous laws that make it impossible for small landlords to stay afloat. When it's too difficult for small- and medium-sized property investors to function, it draws the mega-investors who have no stake in the neighborhood. This is true whether you're complaining about a high rise that blocks everyone's sunlight or housing for the chronically homeless. If you don't have to live in the neighborhood, you have a different set of priorities.

* Tweak rent control laws that discourage investment in lower-cost rental units and provide a disincentive for maintaining properties. This is less relevant to the chronically homeless, but is a key factor in helping families and those on the cusp of being homeless.
____________________________________

The problem, of course, is that each one of these elements contains potential for abuse and mismanagement. Each of them also involves special interests that will howl to high heavens. So I'm guessing we'll continue to kick the problem from community to community rather than actually solve it.
Back to top

Rappel




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jan 19 2021, 12:43 pm
amother [ Black ] wrote:
Obviously YOU didn't pay a million dollars (or way more) for a 20x100 lot, specifically in a Jewish neighborhood. But yes, if we pay that price, we expect to live primarily in "a jewish patch" (as you called it).


If it didn't come in the contract, then it can change.

The whole of NYC is a big shifting marble cake - neighbourhoods change, and always have. Look at the Bronx, Brownsville, Brighton Beach, the Lower East Side... It's an ongoing and natural process.

However, housing projects don't just go away once they're in place.

If I had bought a million dollar home in the neighborhood, I think I would put it up for sale now, before the market falls. A million dollars would buy me a very nice life anywhere else I choose.
Back to top

amother
Tangerine


 

Post Tue, Jan 19 2021, 12:51 pm
elsily wrote:
To all the people saying or thinking “there goes the neighborhood,” you should know that there are people in the world who think this about Jews. Taking a group of people and making blanket statements about them is wrong, and you should feel ashamed.
I’m editing this because people seem confused about my statements : There is NO WAY that everyone in NY who is homeless right now is straight out of jail or a psych hospital. There were homeless people in NY prior to the pandemic and they didn’t all suddenly get housing when the pandemic started!!!!!! Do those people not deserve housing?


It almost sounds like people here sort of have sympathy to how the people of Lakewood and Monsey feel about us.
Back to top

Rappel




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jan 19 2021, 12:55 pm
amother [ Tangerine ] wrote:
It almost sounds like people here sort of have sympathy to how the people of Lakewood and Monsey feel about us.


"Rise Up, Kings County"? Smile
Back to top

amother
Tangerine


 

Post Tue, Jan 19 2021, 12:56 pm
Rappel wrote:
"Rise Up, Kings County"? Smile


Indeed. Maybe someone here should hire Rick Ciullo for PR. I hear he needs an honest job.
Back to top

amother
Seashell


 

Post Tue, Jan 19 2021, 12:58 pm
amother [ Tangerine ] wrote:
It almost sounds like people here sort of have sympathy to how the people of Lakewood and Monsey feel about us.


Excuse me? Why are you equating anti semitism with not wanting junkies and criminals next door?
Back to top

amother
Tangerine


 

Post Tue, Jan 19 2021, 12:59 pm
amother [ Seashell ] wrote:
Excuse me? Why are you equating anti semitism with not wanting junkies and criminals next door?


I’m equating not wanting ‘those other people’ to live in the same neighborhood as me from one place to another. Excuse you.

They have their excuses btw- it’s not antisemitism- it’s just that they have those houses of worship and those schools. Ruining property values...
Bottom line is everyone has their own justification for their biases.
Back to top

watergirl




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jan 19 2021, 1:02 pm
amother [ Mauve ] wrote:
It’s very different when spread out of over the years, individual low income families moved into one same neighborhood.
Every neighborhood will have those.

Here, they’re taking quite a few buildings, with many dilapidated apartments, which decent people won’t live in, and giving it to these homeless people, so many at once.

If they’d move in 2-3 of them, we’d have no choice but to accept it, but dozens? That’s frightening.

I understand. Where I live, by the way, we have section 8 housing and low income housing spread out all around the frum area. Its just a part of life. There is crime where I live. I would not want to live next door, but I did live a block away and yes, we had a lot of issues.

May Hashem continue to bless you with parnassa and may these issues be a kaparah.
Back to top
Page 9 of 11   Previous  1  2  3 8 9  10  11  Next Recent Topics




Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Inquiries & Offers -> New York related Inquiries

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Boro Park sheitelmacher
by amother
0 Yesterday at 9:16 pm View last post
Musical people, please weigh in…am I doomed?
by amother
27 Yesterday at 5:07 pm View last post
Did you deliver MM or wait for people to come to you?
by amother
39 Yesterday at 9:43 am View last post
How do people make money?
by amother
11 Yesterday at 12:35 am View last post
Do people have pets in your communities? 48 Yesterday at 12:21 am View last post