news NYCHA tenants should be fingerprinted: Bloomberg

[Via Garibaldi 8]

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 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. 

I'm simply stating that there would be no point to have home owners fingerprinted.  The home owners are borrowing from banks if they can't afford their home outright (which some can and do purchase as such of course) and aren't having their homes subsidized by the city.  Even if they get an FHA loan, there is still an incentive to get people to get those loans, as the government makes money off of them through the interest that the tack on to the monthly payments and they help to create construction jobs for those who buy new properties/developments.  Here, NYCHA residents just take money from taxpayers and give nothing back in return. This isn't about class distinctions.  This is about finding a cost-effective way to make residents that live in public housing feel safer and reducing overhead/manpower costs.  I don't see how taking steps to improve safety measures at a lower cost is discrimination unless someone is thinking along those lines.

 

 

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.

So you're arguing that people will stop tearing down the properties if they do more to fix them up?  And what exactly would cause them to do this big 360?? Plenty of people live in older homes or buildings and I don't see them tearing them down.  Based on your logic, that should be happening everywhere shouldn't it?

[realizm]

I'm simply stating that there would be no point to have home owners fingerprinted.  The home owners are borrowing from banks if they can't afford their home outright (which some can and do purchase as such of course) and aren't having their homes subsidized by the city.  Even if they get an FHA loan, there is still an incentive to get people to get those loans, as the government makes money off of them through the interest that the tack on to the monthly payments and they help to create construction jobs for those who buy new properties/developments.  Here, NYCHA residents just take money from taxpayers and give nothing back in return. This isn't about class distinctions.  This is about finding a cost-effective way to make residents that live in public housing feel safer and reducing overhead/manpower costs.  I don't see how taking steps to improve safety measures at a lower cost is discrimination unless someone is thinking along those lines.

 

All true in itself I know that all you said is correct. But you stated that as a datamining attempt to dodge my question now instead of previously debunking facts that support the opposing argument. Such as (again) the cycle of poverty model and the social mechanics of it, where your taxes are really going, and who really is at fault for your understandable yet misdirected anger as middle class working taxpayer. While agreeing to the fact that there are people who rip off the system, but not the entire population in the low income bracket.

 

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? 

[bobtehpanda]

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.

 

Your laptop does not put fingerprints in a database normally reserved for convicts and felons, does it? (Well, as far as we know, since the Guardian has not broken any news in regards to fingerprint scanners.)

 

An ID swiping system is much cheaper, and is already used by NYCDOE, so they could just issue an NYCHA contract to the vendor that does it for NYCDOE.

 

You can say that fingerprint scanning is just as good, but you really can't argue against the fact that government fingerprinting has extremely negative connotations (which NYCHA residents really don't need more of).

 

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

 

This is factually incorrect. Public housing, as developed by the City in the 1930s, was created in order to house families permanently in the former locations of slums under the direction of Robert Moses. Back then, if you didn't have a solid upper or middle class job, the only options were overcrowded, unsanitary slums, the most notorious of which was located on the Lower East Side. The idea was that by demolishing extremely dense, low-rise slums and replacing them with spacious, high-rise towers, it would improve public health and quality of life (which it did, up to a certain point.) While there have been many hiccups with the program along the way, NYCHA is still by far the most successful public housing agency in the United States, and would do just fine if the City was willing to fund it instead of, say, throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at a boondoggle IT project (coughCityTimecough)

 

NYCHA may have changed over the years, but its public mission statement has always been to provide affordable housing for residents who might otherwise be forced out into inaccessible, distant suburbs.

[realizm]

All true in itself I know that all you said is correct. But you stated that as a datamining attempt to dodge my question now instead of previously debunking facts that support the opposing argument. Such as (again) the cycle of poverty model and the social mechanics of it, where your taxes are really going, and who really is at fault for your understandable yet misdirected anger as middle class working taxpayer. While agreeing to the fact that there are people who rip off the system, but not the entire population in the low income bracket.

 

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? 

 

Hypothetical question VG8 for the ethical arguement ...... I asked, you said you will move out. Elaborate on that.

 

 

lol.... That would be foolish.  If that were to happen those people would simply leave,

[Turbo19]

So you're arguing that people will stop tearing down the properties if they do more to fix them up?  And what exactly would cause them to do this big 360?? Plenty of people live in older homes or buildings and I don't see them tearing them down.  Based on your logic, that should be happening everywhere shouldn't it?

I don't want to diverge that much further into this discussion as it's detracting from the topic at hand, but there are many adverse psychological effects from residing in a residence that in near uninhabitable and in blight. In contrast residing in a home in good repair and aesthetically creates the opposite effect.

 

To put this in perspective, if your home is literally decaying due to disrepair, or if your environment is blighted then chances are you won't care much yourself and won't contribute to upkeep yourself. Many residents of these communities also come to this realization and after a while contribute to blight and decay themselves, whether it be willful destruction of their apartment or there building. It's a cycle that continues down the line.

 

Now on the contrary, if your home is in excellent repair and something to be prideful of, and if your environment coincides with that then more likely then not as a resident of the community you will contribute to keeping your home and surrounding area in good repair.

 

So the main reason residents would actually turn around is due to the positive psychological affects that are attributed to the removal of blight and the instillation of a sense of community.

[bobtehpanda]

So you're arguing that people will stop tearing down the properties if they do more to fix them up?  And what exactly would cause them to do this big 360?? Plenty of people live in older homes or buildings and I don't see them tearing them down.  Based on your logic, that should be happening everywhere shouldn't it?

 

It's a basic extension of the 'broken windows' crime theory invented in the Netherlands and pushed by former Police Commissioner Bratton - the shittier your neighborhood looks, the more likely crime will be committed. Litter begets more litter, destroyed property begets destroyed property, and murders beget more murders.

 

Obviously, the pursual of a counterstrategy in New York using this theory has had some negative side effects (like the Disneyfication of much of the city), but the 'broken windows' theory has been proven in multiple cities across the United States and the world.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Your laptop does not put fingerprints in a database normally reserved for convicts and felons, does it? (Well, as far as we know, since the Guardian has not broken any news in regards to fingerprint scanners.)

 

An ID swiping system is much cheaper, and is already used by NYCDOE, so they could just issue an NYCHA contract to the vendor that does it for NYCDOE.

 

You can say that fingerprint scanning is just as good, but you really can't argue against the fact that government fingerprinting has extremely negative connotations (which NYCHA residents really don't need more of).

 

 

This is factually incorrect. Public housing, as developed by the City in the 1930s, was created in order to house families permanently in the former locations of slums under the direction of Robert Moses. Back then, if you didn't have a solid upper or middle class job, the only options were overcrowded, unsanitary slums, the most notorious of which was located on the Lower East Side. The idea was that by demolishing extremely dense, low-rise slums and replacing them with spacious, high-rise towers, it would improve public health and quality of life (which it did, up to a certain point.) While there have been many hiccups with the program along the way, NYCHA is still by far the most successful public housing agency in the United States, and would do just fine if the City was willing to fund it instead of, say, throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at a boondoggle IT project (coughCityTimecough)

 

NYCHA may have changed over the years, but its public mission statement has always been to provide affordable housing for residents who might otherwise be forced out into inaccessible, distant suburbs.

Ugh... Another longggg marketing meeting....   Now back to this...

 

1.  I wouldn't have a problem with my fingerprints being on file IF they had to be, unless I had something to hide.  In fact my fingerprints are already on file with the DOE from the times that I've tutored, but there was an end purpose for that, which was being compensated financially.  

2.  Well I'm not speaking from a factual point of view, but from a social point of view.  Who wants to spend their entire life living in the projects?  Living in housing projects should be temporary and not permanent unless you're striving for nothing better in life.

 

 

Hypothetical question VG8 for the ethical arguement ...... I asked, you said you will move out. Elaborate on that.

 

Simple.  What would be the point? As I stated in the previous response, I've had my fingerprints taken before with the DOE and didn't have a problem with it at all as that was part of the process for me to tutor and make extra cash.  It was a simple and painless process aside from the monies I had to pay out.  I don't see what sort of stigma would be associated with it?  For purchasing a house though, what would be the point of someone being fingerprinted?  For me as a tutor, I had to be fingerprinted to ensure that I had a clean criminal record since I work with kids, but for a house??  It makes no sense.  For the NYCHA however, it makes perfect sense from a cost point of view.  It keeps random people from entering, keeps the premises cleaner more than likely, and cuts down on the costs to keep replacing broken locks and other manual labor.

 

It's a basic extension of the 'broken windows' crime theory invented in the Netherlands and pushed by former Police Commissioner Bratton - the shittier your neighborhood looks, the more likely crime will be committed. Litter begets more litter, destroyed property begets destroyed property, and murders beget more murders.

 

Obviously, the pursual of a counterstrategy in New York using this theory has had some negative side effects (like the Disneyfication of much of the city), but the 'broken windows' theory has been proven in multiple cities across the United States and the world.

 

 

I don't want to diverge that much further into this discussion as it's detracting from the topic at hand, but there are many adverse psychological effects from residing in a residence that in near uninhabitable and in blight. In contrast residing in a home in good repair and aesthetically creates the opposite effect.

 

To put this in perspective, if your home is literally decaying due to disrepair, or if your environment is blighted then chances are you won't care much yourself and won't contribute to upkeep yourself. Many residents of these communities also come to this realization and after a while contribute to blight and decay themselves, whether it be willful destruction of their apartment or there building. It's a cycle that continues down the line.

 

Now on the contrary, if your home is in excellent repair and something to be prideful of, and if your environment coincides with that then more likely then not as a resident of the community you will contribute to keeping your home and surrounding area in good repair.

 

So the main reason residents would actually turn around is due to the positive psychological affects that are attributed to the removal of blight and the instillation of a sense of community.

Well it doesn't seem to be working in some places because they've been spending quite a bit of cash to have to keep replacing the broken locks which could be spent elsewhere.

 

On a side note, I've had to do several background criminal checks for jobs that I've taken and also had to consider agreeing to a credit check for another job had I decided to take the offer.  The way I see it, it's just part of the process today.

[MHV9218]

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

 

Unless you own it it's not your home? What kind of bullshit is that? You're telling me that every New Yorker paying rent (or, for that matter, paying off a mortgage) doesn't really have a house?

 

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.

 

Oh, go the f**k off with this 'priorities' nonsense. You are in no position to talk down to somebody else like that, and you're also making zero sense. A car is absolutely an essential in many areas of the city. Not to mention, nobody asked you for your elitist opinion on this. Whether or not you should live in public housing is determined not by how you spend your money but in fact by how much money you earn, so your 'priorities' argument regarding how to spend earned money has nothing to do with anything. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Unless you own it it's not your home? What kind of bullshit is that? You're telling me that every New Yorker paying rent (or, for that matter, paying off a mortgage) doesn't really have a house?. 

That's correct.  When you stop making payments of your mortgage the bank takes back the house and if you stop paying rent, the landlord (owner) serves you an eviction notice, so yeah it's not yours.

 

 

 

Oh, go the f**k off with this 'priorities' nonsense. You are in no position to talk down to somebody else like that, and you're also making zero sense. A car is absolutely an essential in many areas of the city. Not to mention, nobody asked you for your elitist opinion on this. Whether or not you should live in public housing is determined not by how you spend your money but in fact by how much money you earn, so your 'priorities' argument regarding how to spend earned money has nothing to do with anything. 

 

 

Oh please.  When did cable TV become a "necessity" when you're living off of someone else's dime?

[MHV9218]

That's correct.  When you stop making payments of your mortgage the bank takes back the house and if you stop paying rent, the landlord (owner) serves you an eviction notice, so yeah it's not yours.

 

Oh please.  When did cable TV become a "necessity" when you're living off of someone else's dime?

 

So millions of New Yorkers have no home? You're trying to take an absolutist stance to avoid backing down on this issue, and it's just making you sound silly. 

 

Cable TV is not a necessity, but a car very well may be. Moreover, as I said before, the few hundred dollars spent on cable TV are not keeping people in projects; the jobs that aren't paying their families enough dictate eligibility. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

So millions of New Yorkers have no home? You're trying to take an absolutist stance to avoid backing down on this issue, and it's just making you sound silly. 

 

Cable TV is not a necessity, but a car very well may be. Moreover, as I said before, the few hundred dollars spent on cable TV are not keeping people in projects; the jobs that aren't paying their families enough dictate eligibility. 

My point is if you're living in public housing, you shouldn't see that as a permanent solution, not unless you're fine with living in such poor conditions.

 

It's funny how those with more money seem to understand what their priorities are and the importance of wise economic choices.  If I couldn't afford my DirecTV package, I wouldn't go and spend over a $100.00 a month for it.  That's just foolish, but I'm sure there are some that do that though living there.  Talk about priorities.  I personally would be ashamed.

 

That's why I can understand this economic proposal of using fingerprints.  It's a very wise cost-effective solution to an expensive and wasteful problem.

[realizm]

Knoiw what MHV and VG8 you can maul each other to death. I'm done, moving on now.

[bobtehpanda]

Well it doesn't seem to be working in some places because they've been spending quite a bit of cash to have to keep replacing the broken locks which could be spent elsewhere.

 

To be fairly honest, 'broken windows' is about the general conditions of housing projects, which NYCHA doesn't have the money to maintain anymore (elevators constantly break and trap people inside, mold issues in bathrooms, and some houses report unsanitary conditions in hallways and stairwells, and we haven't even gone into the vermin problems). So with that kind of backdrop, it's kind of hard to take pride in your apartment if the landlord won't fix it up.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

To be fairly honest, 'broken windows' is about the general conditions of housing projects, which NYCHA doesn't have the money to maintain anymore (elevators constantly break and trap people inside, mold issues in bathrooms, and some houses report unsanitary conditions in hallways and stairwells, and we haven't even gone into the vermin problems). So with that kind of backdrop, it's kind of hard to take pride in your apartment if the landlord won't fix it up.

Well some of those issues are due to how the housing projects were constructed (built poorly from a design aspect), but also they're starting to show their age.  However, as a tenant, if you're unhappy with your conditions then you have to be proactive about it.  If the residents really cared, they would form an alliance and go and clean up their own stairwells and hallways which would certainly help.  

 

Where I live we all look out for each other and when a light bulb goes out for example, we're on the super to get it changed right away and I have to say he's pretty good at keeping the hallways clean and the garbage taken out when it's supposed to and our sidewalks are pretty much spotless even though they were recently repaved so they're in good condition, but we as residents also do our part in trying to keep the property up but not making a mess everywhere and cleaning up after ourselves.

 

Of course it helps to not have a slum landlord as well, but in this case, you cannot expect the city to go pouring monies into developments that they simply don't have.  That's why it's called public housing.  You can't expect the Ritz Carlton on someone else's dime.