Jump to content

Nicole Malliotakis, GOP mayoral candidate, says NYC’s reserves could help subway system


Via Garibaldi 8

Recommended Posts

You keep repeating this point. I've yet to see you reference a single substantive example of money spent that should have been spent to a lesser degree, or should not have spent at all. Dismissing "homelessness" as not worth spending money on to keep the problem from getting worse is not an answer. I'm beginning to question whether you have any idea about policy at all. If you're going to say these things, you need to point to specific examples. For example: the governor's office redirected around $450million of funds set aside for the MTA to its own state budget, because there were no rules against that. That is an example. Saying over and over that the mayor has been 'overspending,' when this is statistically one of the most economically conservative administrations in years (they've made the point that 'you patch the roof before the rain comes') belies your fundamental confusion of fiscal policy and generally ill-informed perspective. All of us grow stupider listening to these points made 10, 20, or 30 times in a row without a single specific example. This is yet another thread made useless by this practice.

Don't even try to twist my words. I NEVER said that homelessness should be dismissed and that's a damn lie. How dare you even try to twist the situation to suite your agenda. I specifically stated that he has spent more and more money on homelessness, yet the problem continues to grow because he isn't housing enough people in permanent housing but rather emergency housing (i.e. hotels). Since you want a specific example, why in the hell are taxpayer dollars being used to house homeless people in expensive hotels like the Excelsior? That's an example of waste from this administration and yet you're concerned about emergency funds being used to try to get the subways back on track.

 

You and Railrunrob read what you want to read and hear what you want to hear. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Don't even try to twist my words. I NEVER said that homelessness should be dismissed and that's a damn lie. How dare you even try to twist the situation to suite your agenda. I specifically stated that he has spent more and more money on homelessness, yet the problem continues to grow because he isn't housing enough people in permanent housing but rather emergency housing (i.e. hotels). Since you want a specific example, why in the hell are taxpayer dollars being used to house homeless people in expensive hotels like the Excelsior? That's an example of waste from this administration and yet you're concerned about emergency funds being used to try to get the subways back on track.

 

You and Railrunrob read what you want to read and hear what you want to hear. 

 

There's a very simple answer to that question. The city is paying for hotels because neighborhoods and community boards throw a fit whenever a new shelter is proposed (see: Maspeth), so permanent construction is incredibly difficult. Furthermore, not all of the homeless can be stored in hotels in the same area or the same neighborhood response would happen, so the city pays for hotel rooms in various places around the city. Some happen to be in Manhattan, where the rates are higher. The strategy is to share the burden of homelessness around the city, and if neighborhoods like Maspeth--which has nothing but a few blocks of residential homes and then miles of steel yards and industry--didn't lose their minds at "those people" coming in, we wouldn't be in that situation. When it comes to permanent housing, the city has created and preserved more affordable housing than ever before, which is the route for those at-or-above shelter level. If you think you've solved this problem and the city is too stupid to see, I'll ask you: where should new shelters be built? Name a single neighborhood that would accept new shelters being constructed. I'll wait. The hotels are a stopgap measure, staggered around the city to avoid the same neighborhood response. Clearly, nobody views them as a permanent solution, but if it's the difference between people spending the night on the street and having a warm bed, I have a hard time getting as worked up as you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't even try to twist my words. I NEVER said that homelessness should be dismissed and that's a damn lie. How dare you even try to twist the situation to suite your agenda. I specifically stated that he has spent more and more money on homelessness, yet the problem continues to grow because he isn't housing enough people in permanent housing but rather emergency housing (i.e. hotels). Since you want a specific example, why in the hell are taxpayer dollars being used to house homeless people in expensive hotels like the Excelsior? That's an example of waste from this administration and yet you're concerned about emergency funds being used to try to get the subways back on track.

 

You and Railrunrob read what you want to read and hear what you want to hear. 

 

Mostly because the shelters are out of space, but no one wants new shelters. It's like how people were complaining that the garbage system was inefficient, but god forbid someone gets a trash transfer station or something to actually fix the problem.

 

And that's unlikely to happen with de Blasio in office because the City wants to play nice and get the developers to build "affordable housing" (another fraud from this administration), so as I said I don't see any other funding options, whether you say anything about them or not.  I don't know what this "raiding" is that you keep bringing up.  You're so outraged at the thought, but you're not outraged by the amount of overspending that this mayor has done.  If we're really talking about "raiding", there should be far more monies in the City coffers for emergencies than there currently is, especially when you look at how much money the City has been taking in.  There is so much money coming in that de Blasio can't spend it fast enough.

 

New York has always had really pronounced booms and busts. We didn't even bust that hard after the recession, so we're long overdue for a bust.

 

The solution to 'overspending' is not 'spend more', and there hasn't been blatant overspending; it's not as if De Blasio is randomly giving his friends $1B worth of contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't even try to twist my words. I NEVER said that homelessness should be dismissed and that's a damn lie. How dare you even try to twist the situation to suite your agenda. I specifically stated that he has spent more and more money on homelessness, yet the problem continues to grow because he isn't housing enough people in permanent housing but rather emergency housing (i.e. hotels). Since you want a specific example, why in the hell are taxpayer dollars being used to house homeless people in expensive hotels like the Excelsior? That's an example of waste from this administration and yet you're concerned about emergency funds being used to try to get the subways back on track.

 

You and Railrunrob read what you want to read and hear what you want to hear.

(Looks at watch) Not sure if you’re aware but you kinda have a track record. This go’s way beyond this one topic it’s been years. There’s been more then a-few times i’ve agreed with you and I’ve given you your due. But you do kinda gravitate to certain types of topics and stories. (Shurgs) You are who you are! And hey that’s okay. Just pointing it out. Connecting the dots. All IMO of course.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a very simple answer to that question. The city is paying for hotels because neighborhoods and community boards throw a fit whenever a new shelter is proposed (see: Maspeth), so permanent construction is incredibly difficult. Furthermore, not all of the homeless can be stored in hotels in the same area or the same neighborhood response would happen, so the city pays for hotel rooms in various places around the city. Some happen to be in Manhattan, where the rates are higher. The strategy is to share the burden of homelessness around the city, and if neighborhoods like Maspeth--which has nothing but a few blocks of residential homes and then miles of steel yards and industry--didn't lose their minds at "those people" coming in, we wouldn't be in that situation. When it comes to permanent housing, the city has created and preserved more affordable housing than ever before, which is the route for those at-or-above shelter level. If you think you've solved this problem and the city is too stupid to see, I'll ask you: where should new shelters be built? Name a single neighborhood that would accept new shelters being constructed. I'll wait. The hotels are a stopgap measure, staggered around the city to avoid the same neighborhood response. Clearly, nobody views them as a permanent solution, but if it's the difference between people spending the night on the street and having a warm bed, I have a hard time getting as worked up as you.

His policy isn't working because it's stupid to begin with. If it's all about spreading affordable housing around, well what about Park Slope? I haven't heard a damn thing about affordable housing being built in his neighborhood but he's fine putting them in middle class areas like Maspeth. Good for them. You build the shelters in the areas where you have the highest rates of homelessness. It's the city that claims that oh we have to keep people close to their former neighborhoods so do that then and build them where you need them.

 

I'm sure it would be cheaper to build more affordable housing in the South Bronx vs Maspeth... Cheaper land, not to mention better transportation. Maspeth has no subway, so why in the world would you build tons of affordable housing? Waste of resources putting people out of the way to get themselves back on their feet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a very simple answer to that question. The city is paying for hotels because neighborhoods and community boards throw a fit whenever a new shelter is proposed (see: Maspeth), so permanent construction is incredibly difficult.

THIS... You can't complain about a shelter in your neighborhood then complain about the city paying for hotel rooms instead...

 

(that's a general "you", not saying that you do that, VG8)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His policy isn't working because it's stupid to begin with. If it's all about spreading affordable housing around, well what about Park Slope? I haven't heard a damn thing about affordable housing being built in his neighborhood but he's fine putting them in middle class areas like Maspeth. Good for them. You build the shelters in the areas where you have the highest rates of homelessness. It's the city that claims that oh we have to keep people close to their former neighborhoods so do that then and build them where you need them.

 

I'm sure it would be cheaper to build more affordable housing in the South Bronx vs Maspeth... Cheaper land, not to mention better transportation. Maspeth has no subway, so why in the world would you build tons of affordable housing? Waste of resources putting people out of the way to get themselves back on their feet.

 

Affordable housing is mandated in construction around the city. There's not a lot of development in Park Slope because it's a brownstone district--you don't see that in the West Village, either--but you'll note a variety of much-discussed and highly-controversial developments off Atlantic, in Sunset Park, and at a variety of former Public Library properties. Affordable housing goes where new housing goes, and developers are building where they have land and buildings are not landmarked. Maspeth hasn't actually been a site of affordable housing plans, so your subway point is moot--it's rather the location of planned shelters, which the neighborhood viciously and rather racially rejected.

 

For the same principle of market construction, there's less demand to build in the South Bronx than there is in, say, Bushwick, and that's where controversies develop. For an alleged advocate of the free market, you seem to support severe government intervention in the housing market. I support that too, but that sort of stuff is state and federal policy, not city. The city doesn't really get to tell developers where to go, and it can't afford to perform all private sector development by itself. Public sector housing, for the record, means projects, which is something few tend to advocate either. 

 

Lastly, the notion of having shelters in areas of homelessness is delusional, if not plainly malicious. How selfish and unethical do you need to be to insist on condemning already impoverished neighborhoods to even more unpleasant states by filling them with shelters? Presumably, if we had things your way, there'd be a few massive ghettoes (predominantly black and Latino) filled with homeless people and homeless shelters. Personally, I don't see that as a fair or equitable way to structure the city, and luckily neither does the city government. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THIS... You can't complain about a shelter in your neighborhood then complain about the city paying for hotel rooms instead...

 

(that's a general "you", not saying that you do that, VG8)

Obviously they should be picked up by the garbage trucks along with other waste to be buried at landfills. It’s the cheapest solution and most permanent solution!

 

/s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lastly, the notion of having shelters in areas of homelessness is delusional, if not plainly malicious. How selfish and unethical do you need to be to insist on condemning already impoverished neighborhoods to even more unpleasant states by filling them with shelters? Presumably, if we had things your way, there'd be a few massive ghettoes (predominantly black and Latino) filled with homeless people and homeless shelters. Personally, I don't see that as a fair or equitable way to structure the city, and luckily neither does the city government. 

With all the gentrifucation of neighborhoods, having a few homeless shelters around may be the only thing preventing an affordable neighborhood from becoming the next big development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Affordable housing is mandated in construction around the city. There's not a lot of development in Park Slope because it's a brownstone district--you don't see that in the West Village, either--but you'll note a variety of much-discussed and highly-controversial developments off Atlantic, in Sunset Park, and at a variety of former Public Library properties. Affordable housing goes where new housing goes, and developers are building where they have land and buildings are not landmarked. Maspeth hasn't actually been a site of affordable housing plans, so your subway point is moot--it's rather the location of planned shelters, which the neighborhood viciously and rather racially rejected.

 

For the same principle of market construction, there's less demand to build in the South Bronx than there is in, say, Bushwick, and that's where controversies develop. For an alleged advocate of the free market, you seem to support severe government intervention in the housing market. I support that too, but that sort of stuff is state and federal policy, not city. The city doesn't really get to tell developers where to go, and it can't afford to perform all private sector development by itself. Public sector housing, for the record, means projects, which is something few tend to advocate either. 

 

Lastly, the notion of having shelters in areas of homelessness is delusional, if not plainly malicious. How selfish and unethical do you need to be to insist on condemning already impoverished neighborhoods to even more unpleasant states by filling them with shelters? Presumably, if we had things your way, there'd be a few massive ghettoes (predominantly black and Latino) filled with homeless people and homeless shelters. Personally, I don't see that as a fair or equitable way to structure the city, and luckily neither does the city government. 

Listen, it's your buddy de Blasio that keeps saying that homeless people should remain close to their communities. Therefore, using his logic, that means that the homeless shelters should go where you have the most homelessness, wherever that may be. Hell, the Upper West Side is loaded with them despite being a high-income area mainly, so clearly this isn't a race issue as you're trying to make it. The area also has housing projects and low-income residents who have fallen on hard times, so why would there not be homeless shelters there if that's where they are needed?

 

My Park Slope analogy was clarified by you in that most of the area is landmarked, just like parts of my neighborhood, so de Blasio can talk about spreading the shelters around because he knows his own backyard likely won't be affected. How convenient.

 

THIS... You can't complain about a shelter in your neighborhood then complain about the city paying for hotel rooms instead...

 

(that's a general "you", not saying that you do that, VG8)

The City has been secretly putting people in hotels and having them stay there for LONG periods of time and using them as shelters. They've done this numerous times around the city as well, then promised to move the people out when they are busted in the act. That and housing these people in expensive hotels rather than more affordable ones is where the outrage comes from.  I know this for a fact because they've been doing it down the hill there on Broadway not too far from me until the people that live down there started complaining. What's funny is the "outrage" by elected officials who are Democrats, and the fact that de Blasio is making them look like complete idiots, since he didn't even have the decency to notify them of such an arrangement in their own districts.

 

The solution to 'overspending' is not 'spend more', and there hasn't been blatant overspending; it's not as if De Blasio is randomly giving his friends $1B worth of contracts.

That's a funny one because de Blasio has been in bed with the developers from the very beginning, (after all they did donate considerably to his campaign) and has been allowing them to get sweetheart deals. Shall we point to that shady incident with that landmarked building Downtown? Yes, he was cleared after being investigated but still. There are a host of other shady deals too with his name being thrown around. 

 

The overspending has come by way of incompetence. Perfect example: The DOT repaved a street in Brooklyn then had to re-do everything because of an egregious error not thought out accordingly, and this has happened repeatedly where monies have been wasted here and there due to incompetence. Malliotakis is saying let's spend money where it should be spent rather than overspending because of incompetence. Done that way, there will be plenty left for emergencies.

 

And yes this administration has outspent previous ones. Do I need to include the stats that show this since you seem convinced otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.