news NYCHA tenants should be fingerprinted: Bloomberg

[realizm]

Guards are human. When I was getting my license, they kept bombarding the class with "Guards gone wrong" stories.

 

Still in opposition  for the fingerprinting of NYCTA residents or stop and frisk policy at this point in this discussion, standing by it.

 

However,  I will have to nod in agreement with you on this one. Guards, and for that matter police officers (generally speaking, stop and frisk or not) are indeed only human and will make honesthearted mistakes sometimes. We all do, nobody's perfect. Furthermore we have our good cops and our bad cops, definitely. Many POs are fair with the people as they walk the beat on the streets and show reasonableness, leniency, and professional courtesy, I can attest to that.

 

That is what I meant by new PO's receiving sensitivity training and cultural awareness training, so more rookie POs can be this way, as well as using tact in stopping crime, as with the many of veterans who naturally know how to treat the civilians respectfully while doing their jobs in a way that's exceptional, being so many times from decades of experience.

[realizm]

Public housing is a completely different situation from public schools, post offices and so on and you know it.  These people are choosing to live there.  No one is forcing them to.  I compare it to the auto companies that got bailouts off of taxpayers due to their reckless behavior.  They wanted the money and that money came with stipulations and they either accepted them or they got money from elsewhere.  Same thing here.  Don't like the rules of the housing projects, well go shack up elsewhere.  In fact I'd argue they'd be better off living with family until they can do better for themselves, rather than draining the system.

 

And that's the problem with public housing.  Tax dollars constantly wasted by people who are uncivilized and constantly break down everything.  The biggest mistake that "gubment" ever made...

 

I caught that, correct not all poor ones are uncivilized or even choose to be poor nor are deadbeats deliberately abusing the welfare system. You know about the poverty cycle and the specifics of it. It was discussed before in a different discussion. However what you need to realize is not everyone who is poor chooses to live there nor want to. To the contrary many have no choice (those of the poor working class or those in poverty who do have morals). Many people are born poor to begin with obviously out of no fault of their own and have no choice but to choose public housing. I'm missing why you are not acknowledging that. 

 

As for people that do not take advantage of government provisions to benefit themselves and get out of poverty instead of abusing the system, with what I gather from your take on this, those are the people you should be angry at. And keep in mind that the working poor class, many, have to pay taxes too albeit at minimum rates because of their low income. Yes those at minimum wage.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

 

I caught that, correct not all poor ones are uncivilized or even choose to be poor nor are deadbeats deliberately abusing the welfare system. You know about the poverty cycle and the specifics of it. It was discussed before in a different discussion. However what you need to realize is not everyone who is poor chooses to live there nor want to. To the contrary many have no choice (those of the poor working class or those in poverty who do have morals). Many people are born poor to begin with obviously out of no fault of their own and have no choice but to choose public housing. I'm missing why you are not acknowledging that. 

 

As for people that do not take advantage of government provisions to benefit themselves and get out of poverty instead of abusing the system, with what I gather from your take on this, those are the people you should be angry at. And keep in mind that the working poor class, many, have to pay taxes too albeit at minimum rates because of their low income. Yes those at minimum wage.

I get all of that, but that doesn't mean that we should be taking monies from schools or from hiring more cops to keep replacing broken locks and other things in public housing when those residents already consume a large amount of taxpayer dollars.  The bare minimum should be spent.  I'm amazed that they're allowed to have certain amenities there when you have people that live modestly so that they don't have to live in public housing.  This isn't about civil rights or any of that other nonsense.  This is about $$ and only the bare minimum should be spent on public housing and not a cent more.

[Orion VII 4 Life]

I get all of that, but that doesn't mean that we should be taking monies from schools or from hiring more cops to keep replacing broken locks and other things in public housing when those residents already consume a large amount of taxpayer dollars. The bare minimum should be spent. I'm amazed that they're allowed to have certain amenities there when you have people that live modestly so that they don't have to live in public housing. This isn't about civil rights or any of that other nonsense. This is about $$ and only the bare minimum should be spent on public housing and not a cent more.

Agreed. IMHO there should also be a review board of some sort that reviews the criminal profiles of residents and evicts ones who are convicted felons or repeatedly charged with other crimes. You want to take advantage of public housing, abide by the law.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Agreed. IMHO there should also be a review board of some sort that reviews the criminal profiles of residents and evicts ones who are convicted felons or repeatedly charged with other crimes. You want to take advantage of public housing, abide by the law.

I actually believe that some housing projects are like this, but clearly only a few.  There are a number of hot spots around the city that have a heavy police presence in addition to all of the other expenditures the city undertakes to house these people.

[realizm]

I get all of that, but that doesn't mean that we should be taking monies from schools or from hiring more cops to keep replacing broken locks and other things in public housing when those residents already consume a large amount of taxpayer dollars.  The bare minimum should be spent.  I'm amazed that they're allowed to have certain amenities there when you have people that live modestly so that they don't have to live in public housing.  This isn't about civil rights or any of that other nonsense.  This is about $$ and only the bare minimum should be spent on public housing and not a cent more.

 

Well keep in mind that the City of New York put a freeze on new applicants for public housing in 2009 and it stands today as a applicant freeze. Also in the terms of the welfare system now the screening process was reformed and now many find it more difficult to qualify. Good in the sense that it keeps the deadbeats out but bad for those legitimately in danger of hitting rockbottom into the oblivion of poverty. What I'm saying is that the loafers f**k it up for the poor working class who are sincerely struggling to get out of the welfare system and out of poverty ASAP. The thing is that according to the universal, global poverty cycle model many times it can take years for a family to get out, sometimes unfortunately it is impossible. 

 

Getting back to NYC, it was reported by the Coalition for the Homeless that Mayor Bloomberg during the last winter season ending this year literally made a directive to the NYCTA and the Department of Homeless Services to not take in homeless families and single men who need shelter from dangerously cold weather. Also there were HRA employees recently caught in a scam where they actually accepted bribes. They were subsequently charged with class D felony charges.So there is a measure of corruption even with the welfare system itself, keep that in mind. It's not just the deadbeats, it's even your own mayor and civil servants ripping you off as a taxpayer.

 

This is happening in China as well, same problem, abuse of the system, but what the government recently did was up the minimum wage and at the same time up the unemployment benefits rates. This was last year in the PRC. The US is not the only country with this problem.

 

 

(Points were highlighted for emphasis)

[Turbo19]

And whose fault is that? You can't dictate how things go when you're living off of someone else's dime and not contributing for your own upkeep.  Public housing is supposed to be temporary and many of these people use it as a permanent set up, draining the city of scarce monies that could be better used elsewhere, like hiring more cops or more teachers.  This program would eliminate the waste of having to constantly replace broken locks, and allow savings to be used elsewhere.

I must say you are really out of touch on this issue.

 

If tenants are destroying their units then I'd expect the NYCHA to hold them accountable to some extent, just as any other renter would do. No issue there, but I digress as I really can't say I take issue with this.

 

However, what I do take issue with is using this as a basis towards the justification of this security measure. As I said earlier in the discussion there are other methods of keeping record of residents that are much more efficient and no where near as demeaning as the scanner.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I must say you are really out of touch on this issue.

 

If tenants are destroying their units then I'd expect the NYCHA to hold them accountable to some extent, just as any other renter would do. No issue there, but I digress as I really can't say I take issue with this.

 

However, what I do take issue with is using this as a basis towards the justification of this security measure. As I said earlier in the discussion there are other methods of keeping record of residents that are much more efficient and no where near as demeaning as the scanner.

But that's the thing though.  It isn't about keeping records of residents.  It's about cutting down on overhead costs. And who is going to hold these people accountable for constantly breaking the locks?  Obviously no one which is why they're looking at other alternatives rather than constantly replacing broken locks.

[Turbo19]

But that's the thing though.  It isn't about keeping records of residents.  It's about cutting down on overhead costs. And who is going to hold these people accountable for constantly breaking the locks?  Obviously no one which is why they're looking at other alternatives rather than constantly replacing broken locks.

You know if the main concern is in fact overhead costs then I must add it will be another financial drain to implement and maintain this system of records.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

You know if the main concern is in fact overhead costs then I must add it will be another financial drain to implement and maintain this system of records.

How so? These records would be kept electronically.  Back in the old days I'd agree with you but not now.

[bobtehpanda]

The problem, very specifically, is that they're using fingerprint scanners. Most schools and some office buildings have required photo IDs that people must use to swipe in or scan. Very time-tested technology that can have backups and security measures built in.

 

Fingerprint scanners, however, are usually reserved for either very high clearance areas in the government and private sector, or for use in criminal databases by the government. Since it's unlikely that the NSA is giving top-level clearance to all NYCHA residents, it's pretty obvious what the connotations are.

 

A lot of buildings have cards to swipe or tap in. That's okay. Fingerprint scanners are an entirely different story.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The problem, very specifically, is that they're using fingerprint scanners. Most schools and some office buildings have required photo IDs that people must use to swipe in or scan. Very time-tested technology that can have backups and security measures built in.

 

Fingerprint scanners, however, are usually reserved for either very high clearance areas in the government and private sector, or for use in criminal databases by the government. Since it's unlikely that the NSA is giving top-level clearance to all NYCHA residents, it's pretty obvious what the connotations are.

 

A lot of buildings have cards to swipe or tap in. That's okay. Fingerprint scanners are an entirely different story.

Give me a break.    Fingerprints are a unique, easy and secure way of ensuring that access is limited to just those who live there.  Plenty of laptops now come with the option to use your fingerprint to identify you rather than supplying a password.

[realizm]

Give me a break.    Fingerprints are a unique, easy and secure way of ensuring that access is limited to just those who live there.  Plenty of laptops now come with the option to use your fingerprint to identify you rather than supplying a password.

Biometric fingerprinting scanners. Since there is software out there to crack passwords, I use it in my kit of software utilities as a tech. Now they also have biometric scanners that ID you by the blood vessels in the retina in your eyes. Interesting enough that is actually not foolproof either believe it or not.

[RTS CNG Command]

I don't see anything wrong with this idea.

There's a lot wrong with this.

 

1. There are people who live in public housing where someone may not have hands or may have such a debilitating handicap that they can't use their hands (i.e., paralysis). If they can't use their hands to open the doors, then how the hell can they enter the housing? A caretaker could work, but if s/he isn't a tenant, the housing may not recognize him/her.

 

2. You may run into a time where the fingerprint machine may be broken, glitch, and/or won't recognize the fingerprint despite the person living in it uses it repeatedly. You'll have to call the public housing authority or whoever works there to have it repaired and have the tenant get inside.

 

———

 

That's only the mechanical issues. There are also many critical mental implications, which is why it's objectively a bad idea.

 

1. These public houses are government-operated. Our taxpayer money is going into these apartment complexes where the NYC government oversees, operates, and maintains. By the law of the land, the apartments have to abide the laws of the city, state, and entire country. It isn't a top secret office or attraction where it's privately owned and want to verify your temporary residency. You can't go around and force the public and public housing residents to sacrifice their civil liberties just to live in their own homes. It's unconstitutional, morally wrong, and criminal.

 

2. By merely the fact that it's targeting public housing, you're sending messages to those who live there or have friends who live in the projects they're second-class citizens who, despite living in a home, are supervised by Rikers Island-esque security. When your fingerprint information is sent to the government, you implicate to those residents that they're criminals. Fingerprint technology on public residential buildings reinforce the vile stereotype that they — the people who live in the projects — have no purpose in society other than to wilt and suck government money out of our pockets when they're factually doing whatever they can to survive.

 

3. Then there's the fact that most of the tenants are low-income minorities. NYC is in the middle of a long court battle regarding the unconstitutional stop-and-frisk policy, and then Bloomberg responded with this spiel. What do you think the residents are going to say? That it's nothing? That's it's okay for the Bloomberg to say nonsense and forget about it? The public housing residents don't trust the Bloomberg Administration as is; this "fingerprint" bullshit merely makes them trust him and his cohorts less and less.

 

4. You create a slippery slope. The fingerprint technology proposal is infringing rights on those who are surviving in these government-operated apartments, and it sets precedent for the New York City government to spread this practice for other public means.

 

No one is forcing these people to live in public housing.

Actually, when these residents move into the projects, it's not because they want to, but because they have to. New York City is one of the most expensive to live, and the projects are what they can genuinely afford so they can survive and not live out on the street or in a homeless shelter.

 

If they don't like it they can move elsewhere but they're living on taxpayer dollars.

I hear this type of "logic" all the time, and isn't any less backwards. The people living there have every right to call out the Bloomberg Administration for what he said. His lame "plan" is an obviously crude stab at the court for calling the SaF policy out of line, and he deserves all of the angry criticism he's getting. Whether you like it or not, his plan is full of garbage, period!

 

And just because people like myself don't live in the public houses doesn't mean this doesn't affect me, either. My taxpayer money would be going to this proposed project. So the fingerprint proposal does affect me; I won't stand by it.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

There's a lot wrong with this.

 

1. There are people who live in public housing where someone may not have hands or may have such a debilitating handicap that they can't use their hands (i.e., paralysis). If they can't use their hands to open the doors, then how the hell can they enter the housing? A caretaker could work, but if s/he isn't a tenant, the housing may not recognize him/her.

 

2. You may run into a time where the fingerprint machine may be broken, glitch, and/or won't recognize the fingerprint despite the person living in it uses it repeatedly. You'll have to call the public housing authority or whoever works there to have it repaired and have the tenant get inside.

 

———

 

That's only the mechanical issues. There are also many critical mental implications, which is why it's objectively a bad idea.

 

1. These public houses are government-operated. Our taxpayer money is going into these apartment complexes where the NYC government oversees, operates, and maintains. By the law of the land, the apartments have to abide the laws of the city, state, and entire country. It isn't a top secret office or attraction where it's privately owned and want to verify your temporary residency. You can't go around and force the public and public housing residents to sacrifice their civil liberties just to live in their own homes. It's unconstitutional, morally wrong, and criminal.

 

2. By merely the fact that it's targeting public housing, you're sending messages to those who live there or have friends who live in the projects they're second-class citizens who, despite living in a home, are supervised by Rikers Island-esque security. When your fingerprint information is sent to the government, you implicate to those residents that they're criminals. Fingerprint technology on public residential buildings reinforce the vile stereotype that they — the people who live in the projects — have no purpose in society other than to wilt and suck government money out of our pockets when they're factually doing whatever they can to survive.

 

3. Then there's the fact that most of the tenants are low-income minorities. NYC is in the middle of a long court battle regarding the unconstitutional stop-and-frisk policy, and then Bloomberg responded with this spiel. What do you think the residents are going to say? That it's nothing? That's it's okay for the Bloomberg to say nonsense and forget about it? The public housing residents don't trust the Bloomberg Administration as is; this "fingerprint" bullshit merely makes them trust him and his cohorts less and less.

 

4. You create a slippery slope. The fingerprint technology proposal is infringing rights on those who are surviving in these government-operated apartments, and it sets precedent for the New York City government to spread this practice for other public means.

 

Actually, when these residents move into the projects, it's not because they want to, but because they have to. New York City is one of the most expensive to live, and the projects are what they can genuinely afford so they can survive and not live out on the street or in a homeless shelter.

 

I hear this type of "logic" all the time, and isn't any less backwards. The people living there have every right to call out the Bloomberg Administration for what he said. His lame "plan" is an obviously crude stab at the court for calling the SaF policy out of line, and he deserves all of the angry criticism he's getting. Whether you like it or not, his plan is full of garbage, period!

 

And just because people like myself don't live in the public houses doesn't mean this doesn't affect me, either. My taxpayer money would be going to this proposed project. So the fingerprint proposal does affect me; I won't stand by it.

1 & 2.   Back up systems can be put into place for those situations, so that's not a big deal.  The plan hadn't been that thoroughly thought out anyway.  It was just that... An idea being tossed around.

 

--

1.  That's the thing... It ISN'T their own homes... It's PUBLIC housing and they are using taxpayer dollars to live there, so they can either abide by the rules there or live elsewhere, which in essence means that they aren't being forced to do anything that they don't want to so they have the option to be fingerprinted or not.

 

2.  And I wonder whose fault that is?  It's evident that they can't act like civilized human beings if the locks are constantly broken along with all of the other nonsense that goes on in those housing projects.  In short they brought this upon themselves for not having any respect for where they live.  Taxpayers are already forking over enough money for these money pits and taking from other important public services like schools and police officers.

 

3.  And why should the administration care what they think? As I said before if they don't like it well then they don't have to live there.  No one is forcing them to stay there.  If the cost of living in NYC is too high, guess what? Leave NY and move elsewhere that's cheaper and stop mooching off of taxpayer dollars.  That's what millions of people have done.  Why should taxpayers have to support these able bodied people?  People with disabilities or the elderly usually live in senior homes or homes for people with special disabilities, not housing projects.

 

4. Oh I beg to differ.  Some of them don't see to be doing so "terribly" living in the housing projects.  They do better than people not living in housing projects and have amenities like cable, a car (sometimes even a more high end car).  Certainly they can live and make ends meet without these things so that they don't have to depend on taxpayer dollars.  Hell I bet they have a more expensive TV and more expensive cable package at home than I do.  The difference is I don't mooch off of other people to get what I have like they do because I have dignity and self-respect.

[Astoria Line]

1 & 2.   Back up systems can be put into place for those situations, so that's not a big deal.  The plan hadn't been that thoroughly thought out anyway.  It was just that... An idea being tossed around.

 

--

1.  That's the thing... It ISN'T their own homes... It's PUBLIC housing and they are using taxpayer dollars to live there, so they can either abide by the rules there or live elsewhere, which in essence means that they aren't being forced to do anything that they don't want to so they have the option to be fingerprinted or not.

 

2.  And I wonder whose fault that is?  It's evident that they can't act like civilized human beings if the locks are constantly broken along with all of the other nonsense that goes on in those housing projects.  In short they brought this upon themselves for not having any respect for where they live.  Taxpayers are already forking over enough money for these money pits and taking from other important public services like schools and police officers.

 

3.  And why should the administration care what they think? As I said before if they don't like it well then they don't have to live there.  No one is forcing them to stay there.  If the cost of living in NYC is too high, guess what? Leave NY and move elsewhere that's cheaper and stop mooching off of taxpayer dollars.  That's what millions of people have done.  Why should taxpayers have to support these able bodied people?  People with disabilities or the elderly usually live in senior homes or homes for people with special disabilities, not housing projects.

 

4. Oh I beg to differ.  Some of them don't see to be doing so "terribly" living in the housing projects.  They do better than people not living in housing projects and have amenities like cable, a car (sometimes even a more high end car).  Certainly they can live and make ends meet without these things so that they don't have to depend on taxpayer dollars.  Hell I bet they have a more expensive TV and more expensive cable package at home than I do.  The difference is I don't mooch off of other people to get what I have like they do because I have dignity and self-respect.

 

1. Lets speak theoretically, public housing or not, would you agree with being fingerprinted JUST to get into your apartment ?

 

2. Why do I have the feeling that you are being stereotypical.. not everyone that lived/lives in the projects are "animals" and "evil". In fact, it was a very small minority out of the people that live there. The quote "It only takes some to ruin it for many..." comes to mind. I lived in the projects, and you all know damn well I'm not a "thug"....

 

Also, you are making it seem like people break everything there. Living there first hand, it is a very subpar experience, but mostly because NYCHA can't take care of their s***. I've had to wait months for several things to be fixed that weren't my fault (a radiator, a toilet). Now since you've never lived here, you assume "Oh these people break stuff, and our money goes to NYCHA to fix it !" (which isn't the case AT ALL)

 

3. Some people don't have any other options..... but you are very unsympathetic to that it seems. And here is the problem, A LOT of people in the projects ARE actually injured/disabled, but you wouldn't know that so(the amt of elderlies that I saw in my old building with walkers and wheelchairs... many of them have raised families here and now have grandchildren)... Not everyone that lives there is able bodied and use gov't resources.

 

4. So because some people have cable and a car, they automatically have enough money to move out of the projects? ...really? See, they look at your income, now you don't know the people or their situation.. When I lived here, I had cable and my family had a car, but it was still hard to afford anywhere else...

 

 

This hits a strong nerve to me. Tbh I think you and a few people here, are using typical stereotypes and arguments that those "well off" use for those in the projects because they think that they're "above" them. I've been in both situations, the kid who grew up in the projects, moving to a nice part of Long Island, and I think your attitude is disgusting.

 

Also while people are saying "Lets have more tax money going to education and police!". NYCHA has been having less money going to them recently.and things actually have gone down hill in some NYCHA places (not that you would care ofc). I'm sure the politicians don't care enough about education or quality of education here would be better and most of the tax money have been going to other things (those stupid a** citibikes) and im sure every year loads of tax money goes to the NYPD. 

[MHV9218]

1 & 2.   Back up systems can be put into place for those situations, so that's not a big deal.  The plan hadn't been that thoroughly thought out anyway.  It was just that... An idea being tossed around.

 

--

1.  That's the thing... It ISN'T their own homes... It's PUBLIC housing and they are using taxpayer dollars to live there, so they can either abide by the rules there or live elsewhere, which in essence means that they aren't being forced to do anything that they don't want to so they have the option to be fingerprinted or not.

 

2.  And I wonder whose fault that is?  It's evident that they can't act like civilized human beings if the locks are constantly broken along with all of the other nonsense that goes on in those housing projects.  In short they brought this upon themselves for not having any respect for where they live.  Taxpayers are already forking over enough money for these money pits and taking from other important public services like schools and police officers.

 

3.  And why should the administration care what they think? As I said before if they don't like it well then they don't have to live there.  No one is forcing them to stay there.  If the cost of living in NYC is too high, guess what? Leave NY and move elsewhere that's cheaper and stop mooching off of taxpayer dollars.  That's what millions of people have done.  Why should taxpayers have to support these able bodied people?  People with disabilities or the elderly usually live in senior homes or homes for people with special disabilities, not housing projects.

 

4. Oh I beg to differ.  Some of them don't see to be doing so "terribly" living in the housing projects.  They do better than people not living in housing projects and have amenities like cable, a car (sometimes even a more high end car).  Certainly they can live and make ends meet without these things so that they don't have to depend on taxpayer dollars.  Hell I bet they have a more expensive TV and more expensive cable package at home than I do.  The difference is I don't mooch off of other people to get what I have like they do because I have dignity and self-respect.

 

Holy elitist shit, batman!

 

Where do we even START?! 

 

If you live in public housing, that is absolutely your home! "Isn't their home..." what complete bullshit. You're paying rent just like any other citizen of New York City. It's beyond ignorant to claim that rent-paying citizens are 'mooching off tax dollars.' Secondly, so, so, little money goes to public housing that fear-inducing claims like money 'forked away from police officers' are completely disingenuous. Equally absurd are your generalizations...a few bad apples does not all public housing residents make! Denouncing thousands of people as unable to 'act like civilized human beings' is comically disgusting and simply inaccurate. Next thing you know, we'll be generalizing all of Riverdale as racist, elitist pricks... Lastly, your solution to those who have trouble living in the most expensive city in the world is to 'leave'? That's it? Pack up? Shit, I can see why you're not in mayoral contention...

[realizm]

1 & 2.   Back up systems can be put into place for those situations, so that's not a big deal.  The plan hadn't been that thoroughly thought out anyway.  It was just that... An idea being tossed around.

 

--

1.  That's the thing... It ISN'T their own homes... It's PUBLIC housing and they are using taxpayer dollars to live there, so they can either abide by the rules there or live elsewhere, which in essence means that they aren't being forced to do anything that they don't want to so they have the option to be fingerprinted or not.

 

Hypothetical question: Put yourself in the shoes of NYCTA housing residents for a minute. Hear me out. The fact that you have to use biometric devices at your place of work for IT security purposes is not applicable, that is a different scenario involving work policies, so relating to that will not be an acceptable answer to my hypothetical question. I know you will try to debunk that using this fact as a deterrant to dodge the question, so lets not go there. Ok?

 

~ Let's say City Hall enforces a policy that all home owners in affluent residential neighborhoods are to be fingerprinted as well, throughout the city, even your residential neighborhood, where we have living there those who are well over the $40,000 bracket, law abiding citizens who pay their dues to the city, state and federal government. Will you agree to that in that imaginary scenario? Will you feel this is a violation of your privacy? Yes? No? ....and why.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Holy elitist shit, batman!

 

Where do we even START?! 

 

If you live in public housing, that is absolutely your home! "Isn't their home..." what complete bullshit. You're paying rent just like any other citizen of New York City. It's beyond ignorant to claim that rent-paying citizens are 'mooching off tax dollars.' Secondly, so, so, little money goes to public housing that fear-inducing claims like money 'forked away from police officers' are completely disingenuous. Equally absurd are your generalizations...a few bad apples does not all public housing residents make! Denouncing thousands of people as unable to 'act like civilized human beings' is comically disgusting and simply inaccurate. Next thing you know, we'll be generalizing all of Riverdale as racist, elitist pricks... Lastly, your solution to those who have trouble living in the most expensive city in the world is to 'leave'? That's it? Pack up? Shit, I can see why you're not in mayoral contention...

Really? Public housing is supposed to be a temporary fix not a permanent one, so unless they own it, it is not their home.  

 

Yes, if I couldn't afford to live here, I would leave and live in a cheaper place.  It's certainly much better than looking for handouts.

 

1. Lets speak theoretically, public housing or not, would you agree with being fingerprinted JUST to get into your apartment ?

 

2. Why do I have the feeling that you are being stereotypical.. not everyone that lived/lives in the projects are "animals" and "evil". In fact, it was a very small minority out of the people that live there. The quote "It only takes some to ruin it for many..." comes to mind. I lived in the projects, and you all know damn well I'm not a "thug"....

 

Also, you are making it seem like people break everything there. Living there first hand, it is a very subpar experience, but mostly because NYCHA can't take care of their s***. I've had to wait months for several things to be fixed that weren't my fault (a radiator, a toilet). Now since you've never lived here, you assume "Oh these people break stuff, and our money goes to NYCHA to fix it !" (which isn't the case AT ALL)

 

3. Some people don't have any other options..... but you are very unsympathetic to that it seems. And here is the problem, A LOT of people in the projects ARE actually injured/disabled, but you wouldn't know that so(the amt of elderlies that I saw in my old building with walkers and wheelchairs... many of them have raised families here and now have grandchildren)... Not everyone that lives there is able bodied and use gov't resources.

 

4. So because some people have cable and a car, they automatically have enough money to move out of the projects? ...really? See, they look at your income, now you don't know the people or their situation.. When I lived here, I had cable and my family had a car, but it was still hard to afford anywhere else...

 

 

This hits a strong nerve to me. Tbh I think you and a few people here, are using typical stereotypes and arguments that those "well off" use for those in the projects because they think that they're "above" them. I've been in both situations, the kid who grew up in the projects, moving to a nice part of Long Island, and I think your attitude is disgusting.

 

Also while people are saying "Lets have more tax money going to education and police!". NYCHA has been having less money going to them recently.and things actually have gone down hill in some NYCHA places (not that you would care ofc). I'm sure the politicians don't care enough about education or quality of education here would be better and most of the tax money have been going to other things (those stupid a** citibikes) and im sure every year loads of tax money goes to the NYPD. 

I'm sorry but I see things like cable and having a car as non essentials, so if you have those things then you shouldn't have to be living in public housing.  The money spent in a car, insurance, maintenance, gas and so on could go towards rent or saving up for a house or an apartment.  Same thing with cable.  It's all about priorities.

 

As for monies going to NYCHA, I think part of the issue is too many projects were built.  I don't think the city had long term plans for them but they're still here, so now we're stuck with them and the money pits/tax drain that they are.

 

Hypothetical question: Put yourself in the shoes of NYCTA housing residents for a minute. Hear me out. The fact that you have to use biometric devices at your place of work for IT security purposes is not applicable, that is a different scenario involving work policies, so relating to that will not be an acceptable answer to my hypothetical question. I know you will try to debunk that using this fact as a deterrant to dodge the question, so lets not go there. Ok?

 

~ Let's say City Hall enforces a policy that all home owners in affluent residential neighborhoods are to be fingerprinted as well, throughout the city, even your residential neighborhood, where we have living there those who are well over the $40,000 bracket, law abiding citizens who pay their dues to the city, state and federal government. Will you agree to that in that imaginary scenario? Will you feel this is a violation of your privacy? Yes? No? ....and why.

lol.... That would be foolish.  If that were to happen those people would simply leave, as would I.  The people that are the tax generators for this city should be welcomed, not penalized for their contributions.

[realizm]

lol.... That would be foolish.  If that were to happen those people would simply leave, as would I.  The people that are the tax generators for this city should be welcomed, not penalized for their contributions.

 

That's my point. That's why I asked you the question, to help you to see the perspective from a different angle for a minute without disrespecting your viewpoint. 

 

There are those of the poor working class who ARE paying taxes to the city, state and federal government. They are paying rent in public housing on a sliding scale according to their base income, many, families. They are poor. How can they just drop everything and leave?

 

I wont get into the specifics here, it's no one's business, but with your income you are considered higher middle class. You can just pick up and leave in such a hypothetical scenario. The poor working class cant exactly do that on the fly. It can take many years for a family to break the poverty cycle. Some are born into it. This is not exclusive to the United states. this (again) is happening in Europe as well as Asia. You know this. 

 

Remember, again the poverty model. It's a vicious cycle. There is a way to break out of it, but it is extremely difficult. To be fair of course there is corruption within the HRA (bribery scandals as of late as I've stated and can provide source for your reference) and the fact that many abuse the system in many ways I can list. Not questioning that.

 

*But* what you need to realize is that your blanket statement is invalid because not all who are poor are deadbeats or criminals. It is offending people, that's why you are getting negative reactions. If you word it differently, explaining your views exactly so (because you are entitled to your opinion to be fair) without discriminatory blanket statements regarding the poor, then people will debate the poinst (as I am doing) but not offended in the process.

 

Many reasons many are trapped in the welfare system that sets them apart from the deadbeat scammers --  due to unforseen events such as uncalled for evictions on the part of slumlords and skyrocketing rent and mortgage rates due to unfair gentrification and real estate practices, building fires, rehabilitating illnesses and/or injuries forcing some people on SSI unfortunately etc etc. Many of your civil servants even, working for city agencies probably at one point making 80K max end up in situations like this! I've seen it in working with city agencies as an IT consultant.

 

Keep in mind that many of the poor working class are indeed college students fighting to get out of poverty. And many times they succeed and elevate into the middle class sector.

 

And again in terms of your taxpayer argument: Why don't you see that the HRA must share some of the blame as Turbo19 is alluding to in so many words? They can accept bribes I imagine which is a felony class D. Imagine what they are forcing you to pay for unnecessarily then due to the approval of shit budgets on the part of city agencies, City Hall, and state, feds to add, due to mismanagement which opens up a whole new world for debate (and I am up to it if you wish to discuss). So it's *only* and *solely* the fault of the NYCTA housing, or homeless shelter residents?

 

Nope. I totally disagree. 

 

You are upset as a taxpayer. What I would suggest then is this:  You should write letters and set up petitions to the appropriate agencies and explain away your views as a taxpayer, instead of screaming at the poor working class or the homeless because they are the ones approving the tax rates for you to pay at exorbitant rates as a middle class citizen, not the working poor class and the impoverished. Its the government sir.

 

You are also paying for the pending US military strike in Lybia. Again, the US government let alone the city and state in this case we are discussing as far as the welfare system. Now that's who you should be angry at, also the HRA scammers, NOT the entire poor working class and the impoverished. It makes you seem to appear as an elitist who is making a prejudiced blanket statement without openmindedness and that is not doing good to explain your views so that you are understood as a taxpayer upset with where your taxes are going as an alternative conservative viewpoint which is debatable but fair. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

That's my point. That's why I asked you the question, to help you to see the perspective from a different angle for a minute without disrespecting your viewpoint. 

 

There are those of the poor working class who ARE paying taxes to the city, state and federal government. They are paying rent in public housing on a sliding scale according to their base income, many, families. They are poor. How can they just drop everything and leave?

 

I wont get into the specifics here, it's no one's business, but with your income you are considered higher middle class. You can just pick up and leave in such a hypothetical scenario. The poor working class cant exactly do that on the fly. It can take many years for a family to break the poverty cycle. Some are born into it. This is not exclusive to the United states. this (again) is happening in Europe as well as Asia. You know this. 

 

Remember, again the poverty model. It's a vicious cycle. There is a way to break out of it, but it is extremely difficult. To be fair of course there is corruption within the HRA (bribery scandals as of late as I've stated and can provide source for your reference) and the fact that many abuse the system in many ways I can list. Not questioning that.

 

*But* what you need to realize is that your blanket statement is invalid because not all who are poor are deadbeats or criminals. It is offending people, that's why you are getting negative reactions. If you word it differently, explaining your views exactly so (because you are entitled to your opinion to be fair) without discriminatory blanket statements regarding the poor, then people will debate the poinst (as I am doing) but not offended in the process.

 

Many reasons many are trapped in the welfare system that sets them apart from the deadbeat scammers --  due to unforseen events such as uncalled for evictions on the part of slumlords and skyrocketing rent and mortgage rates due to unfair gentrification and real estate practices, building fires, rehabilitating illnesses and/or injuries forcing some people on SSI unfortunately etc etc. Many of your civil servants even, working for city agencies probably at one point making 80K max end up in situations like this! I've seen it in working with city agencies as an IT consultant.

 

Keep in mind that many of the poor working class are indeed college students fighting to get out of poverty. And many times they succeed and elevate into the middle class sector.

 

And again in terms of your taxpayer argument: Why don't you see that the HRA must share some of the blame as Turbo19 is alluding to in so many words? They can accept bribes I imagine which is a felony class D. Imagine what they are forcing you to pay for unnecessarily then due to the approval of shit budgets on the part of city agencies, City Hall, and state, feds to add, due to mismanagement which opens up a whole new world for debate (and I am up to it if you wish to discuss). So it's *only* and *solely* the fault of the NYCTA housing, or homeless shelter residents?

 

Nope. I totally disagree. 

 

You are upset as a taxpayer. What I would suggest then is this:  You should write letters and set up petitions to the appropriate agencies and explain away your views as a taxpayer, instead of screaming at the poor working class or the homeless because they are the ones approving the tax rates for you to pay at exorbitant rates as a middle class citizen, not the working poor class and the impoverished. Its the government sir.

 

You are also paying for the pending US military strike in Lybia. Again, the US government let alone the city and state in this case we are discussing as far as the welfare system. Now that's who you should be angry at, also the HRA scammers, NOT the entire poor working class and the impoverished. It makes you seem to appear as an elitist who is making a prejudiced blanket statement without openmindedness and that is not doing good to explain your views so that you are understood as a taxpayer upset with where your taxes are going as an alternative conservative viewpoint which is debatable but fair. 

There is a difference here though.  The people that would be getting fingerprinted in the public housing would only be fingerprinted as a cost saving measure and nothing more.  I see nothing wrong with that.  However, in your scenario, there would be no point in fingerprinting homeowners in affluent areas.  

[Turbo19]

There is a difference here though.  The people that would be getting fingerprinted in the public housing would only be fingerprinted as a cost saving measure and nothing more.  I see nothing wrong with that.  However, in your scenario, there would be no point in fingerprinting homeowners in affluent areas.  

Since at this point you're unswayed all I'm adding is that everyone in this city is equal, and as such everyone should be subjected to the same fair treatment. Going as far as fingerprinting residents is a form of discrimination whether you or any other supporters choose to accept it or not.

 

Personally I feel these funds could go to much better uses in the NYCHA, such as contributing to much needed repairs to keep these apartments at least semi inhabitable. Now this would be cost saving as periodic minor repairs on dilapidated components could cease.

 

But of course the residents are never at forefront of anything. If they were this damn discussion wouldn't even exist.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Since at this point you're unswayed all I'm adding is that everyone in this city is equal, and as such everyone should be subjected to the same fair treatment. Going as far as fingerprinting residents is a form of discrimination whether you or any other supporters choose to accept it or not.

 

Personally I feel these funds could go to much better uses in the NYCHA, such as contributing to much needed repairs to keep these apartments at least semi inhabitable. Now this would be cost saving as periodic minor repairs on dilapidated components could cease.

 

But of course the residents are never at forefront of anything. If they were this damn discussion wouldn't even exist.

Are you kidding me? We're having this conversation due to these wonderful residents breaking the locks constantly, which costs money to keep repairing/replacing. What's your solution/explanation for that?

[realizm]

There is a difference here though.  The people that would be getting fingerprinted in the public housing would only be fingerprinted as a cost saving measure and nothing more.  I see nothing wrong with that.  However, in your scenario, there would be no point in fingerprinting homeowners in affluent areas.  

 

Are you stating this as a debunker against the ethical argument for making class distinctions between income classes? Because I anticipated this response. This again is a hypothetical question: If all middle class people were subject by Bloomberg to fingerprinting just to purchase a home or luxury condo in a middle class residential neighborhood is that fair? Or not? I sense that you see what I am saying because your answer was you will move out.

 

Maybe perhaps you can elaborate on why you feel that way. 

Are you kidding me? We're having this conversation due to these wonderful residents breaking the locks constantly, which costs money to keep repairing/replacing. What's your solution/explanation for that?

 

We are not trying to force you, at least I am not. I simply wish for you to understand the opposing argument clearly.

[Turbo19]

Are you kidding me? We're having this conversation due to these wonderful residents breaking the locks constantly, which costs money to keep repairing/replacing. What's your solution/explanation for that?

My explanation for that is to put money into improving the damn buildings foremost anything else.

 

This would curve willful destruction to the properties by tenants, and reduce elements of crime by removing blight. That would benefit the residents and the rest of the people funding the NYCHA. Not the damn fingerprint entry system.