Rise of Homeless in Subways Poses Increasing Problem for Transit Staff

[Interested Rider]

let me add my two cents on this subject:

There are a lot of homeless people who are mentally ill and need a structured environment but to the city and the state, it is not a priority even though it should be not only for the health and welfare of these individuals but for the people that live here. I would like to go back in history so that an understanding of the problem of the mentally ill not getting treatment is the fault of the city and state governments.

When the idea to release the mentally ill from the institutions was first proposed, it was with the idea that the mentally ill would receive care and treatment in small centers throughout the state. The problem was two fold as neither the state could come up with the money for these residences and that certain people who are mentally ill are not suitable to live in this type of environment. Instead of evaluating the program and seeing that the proposed system does not work to what was proposed, the state continued with the program as the state wanted to close the mental health facilities and reduce the workforce.So while some of the persons  adapted to the new program, a lot of them did not and it was the state correctional families such as the closed Arthur Kill Correctional facility  that became the dumping ground for the mentally ill. These same individuals had the structured environment but once they were released, it was back to the same thing that they left before entering the criminal justice system. In the meantime, the state continued to close mental health facilities that had offered the structured environment that many of the mentally ill need. Were the localized small care facilities closed or the program re-evaluated to see if it was actually serving the needs of the mentally ill? Apparently not as now the problem has shifted back to the streets and now we have the vested interests who do not want to lose their cash cows trying to defend a program that needs to be-evaluated as it is not working and possibly the old way was more  effective. Taking that last point, the governor does not want to hire employees for the institutions for it does not fit his agenda of claiming that fewer state employees are on the payroll, even though it will help the mentally ill who need  long term care.

So we have the governor who needs the campaign contributions from the legal community and the activists who want the mentally ill on the streets on one side and the needs of the mentally ill and the general public on the other side. The mayor is in the same position with one major difference for if he proposes a program where there are long term treatment centers for the mentally ill, will it be a major priority for funding but will the state provide a major share of the funding to implement and upkeep of this program? The answer is unfortunately no and neither will the federal government provide funding as the thinking continues to be that long term care centers are not working even though after 40+ years of residential treatment centers, there is still a problem  of what to do with the mentally ill that .need long term care but are not receiving it.

When it comes to evaluating programs to see if they are working, government waits too long before doing the follow up work. by the time, a program is evaluated for its efficiency and effectiveness, the program has developed a constituency that wants the program preserved at all cost. So if the program has to modified or changed that will benefit the client population,it runs into a brick wall from those who benefit from the program. this is the reason that the mentally who are homeless and need long term care will never get it   and we will continue to read about their problems for years on end.

[Connie]

Here's how to change it; BUILD MORE HOMELESS SHELTERS

[Deucey]

31 minutes ago, Connie said:

Here's how to change it; BUILD MORE HOMELESS SHELTERS

1) Where?

2) How do you intend to make those who choose not to go to a shelter go to a shelter without violating their 1st, 4th and 14th Amendment rights and subjecting the City (and/or State) to civil suits?

[CenSin]

9 hours ago, Deucey said:

1) Where?

2) How do you intend to make those who choose not to go to a shelter go to a shelter without violating their 1st, 4th and 14th Amendment rights and subjecting the City (and/or State) to civil suits?

How do other cities keep their subway systems clean then? I saw none in Washington D.C.’s system and I did not see any in San Francisco either. They were pretty nice for the most part.

[Deucey]

1 hour ago, CenSin said:

How do other cities keep their subway systems clean then? I saw none in Washington D.C.’s system and I did not see any in San Francisco either. They were pretty nice for the most part.

They shut down overnight...

But that really has nothing to do with my previous reply. 

The questions were:

1) Where are they gonna build more shelters?

2) How are they gonna make people who don't go to shelters go to shelters without violating constitutional rights and/or exposing NYC and NYS to significant liability?

[ttcsubwayfan]

Building more shelters isn't going to accomplish a God damn thing if conditions exist in the existing ones that make the homeless reluctant to use them. You always hear about how the shelter system has all these problems with thefts and whatnot; until those conditions improve, you can demolish every building in the city and replace it with a shelter and it's still not going to lead to an increase in individuals using the shelter system.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 hour ago, Deucey said:

They shut down overnight...

But that really has nothing to do with my previous reply. 

The questions were:

1) Where are they gonna build more shelters?

2) How are they gonna make people who don't go to shelters go to shelters without violating constitutional rights and/or exposing NYC and NYS to significant liability?

 

46 minutes ago, ttcsubwayfan said:

Building more shelters isn't going to accomplish a God damn thing if conditions exist in the existing ones that make the homeless reluctant to use them. You always hear about how the shelter system has all these problems with thefts and whatnot; until those conditions improve, you can demolish every building in the city and replace it with a shelter and it's still not going to lead to an increase in individuals using the shelter system.

The problem is we have a serious affordable housing issue here. De Blasio has admitted that he has failed to lessen the problem too. We have more and more families pushed out into the streets and the homeless crisis is worse than ever due to skyrocketing rents. Each borough is feeling it, but it's especially true in the poorest parts of the city. This is where de Blasio is a fault. He has enjoyed seeing more and more service jobs being created. Tourist jobs DON'T pay anything. Some guy working in Times Square making minimum wage cannot afford $1400 in rent. Just not possible. You add to the fact that very few New Yorkers earn even $50,000 a year, let alone above that and it should be clear to see what the problem is. The rents overall are taking its toll even on businesses. You see so many vacancies with businesses shuttering because they too can't afford the rent. This is what Lhota and Cuomo was referring to. The City needs to step in and something because eventually high rents will have severe consequences for the City. Less tax revenue and you'll see this problem get even worse which is saying something.

[CenSin]

6 hours ago, Deucey said:

They shut down overnight...

Then NYC can also “shut down” its system. They don’t really have to do a full shutdown—just enough so that they can get the homeless out on a technicality. Whatever the other cities are doing to get the homeless out legally, we can also do (with laws changed if needed).

Winter is coming and more homeless are camping out on the trains—sometimes inconveniently spread out along the entire length of the train so that you cannot get away from the stench no matter which car you hop to.

[R42N]

16 hours ago, CenSin said:

Then NYC can also “shut down” its system. They don’t really have to do a full shutdown—just enough so that they can get the homeless out on a technicality. Whatever the other cities are doing to get the homeless out legally, we can also do (with laws changed if needed).

Winter is coming and more homeless are camping out on the trains—sometimes inconveniently spread out along the entire length of the train so that you cannot get away from the stench no matter which car you hop to.

Yep, the can pull a Laguardia Airport, where they are closed between 1-3 am with the exception of “ticketed passengers”.

The MTA could add a weird technicality to get the off the platforms in the stations, but not off the trains, unfortunately. 

[RailRunRob]

17 hours ago, CenSin said:

Then NYC can also “shut down” its system. They don’t really have to do a full shutdown—just enough so that they can get the homeless out on a technicality. Whatever the other cities are doing to get the homeless out legally, we can also do (with laws changed if needed).

Winter is coming and more homeless are camping out on the trains—sometimes inconveniently spread out along the entire length of the train so that you cannot get away from the stench no matter which car you hop to.

Are we calculating the sheer size of the Subway system? It's truly a sub-terrain world on to itself that's alot of man power. Most systems have 40-50 stations compare that 472? Plus passageways and private entries on top of 24/7 service. I don't know..How could you do this without a small Army?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 hour ago, RailRunRob said:

Are we calculating the sheer size of the Subway system? It's truly a sub-terrain world on to itself that's alot of man power. Most systems have 40-50 stations compare that 472? Plus passageways and private entries on top of 24/7 service. I don't know..How could you do this without a small Army?

The same way that they currently shut down some of the entrances. Besides the private entrances are already taken care of by the buildings that maintain/manage them.

[RailRunRob]

1 minute ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

The same way that they currently shut down some of the entrances. Besides the private entries are already taken care of by the buildings that maintain/manage them.

Anything's possible with money and manpower. That's what im asking 472 stations. Are you talking just high profile areas?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Just now, RailRunRob said:

Anything's possible with money and manpower. That's what im asking 472 stations. Are you talking just high profile areas?

I would start there.  There are a lot of outdoor stations that don't offer any cover and have limited entrances so those don't need as much attention.  Focus on the big ones that are below grand that are known to be hot spots like 47th - 50th street, Grand Central, Herald Square, Penn Station, etc.  Those are the big ones in my mind where I see hoards of homeless people just camped out everywhere.  It really brings down those stations and makes it difficult for transit workers to keep them clean.  In fact most of the ones above are some of the filthiest in the system. 

[RailRunRob]

1 minute ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I would start there.  There are a lot of outdoor stations that don't offer any cover and have limited entrances so those don't need as much attention.  Focus on the big ones that are below grand that are known to be hot spots like 47th - 50th street, Grand Central, Herald Square, Penn Station, etc.  Those are the big ones in my mind where I see hoards of homeless people just camped out everywhere.  It really brings down those stations and makes it difficult for transit workers to keep them clean.  In fact most of the ones above are some of the filthiest in the system. 

Okay, now we cut that 472 to 275 stations. Okay, the big ones are workable. How do you get more outreach down there for the homless and start that process? 

[RailRunRob]

You know what haha... I don't want to know how you get the outreach down there.  I'll stick to I know the technical stuff. I'm not ready to go down this black hole. I'll leave that to you guys. That makes sense start with the big station's question answered.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

5 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

Okay, now we cut that 472 to 275 stations. Okay, the big ones are workable. How do you get more outreach down there for the homless and start that process? 

There's already outreach and they clear them out and they come right back, so outreach isn't the problem. You can't force people into shelters either.  Supposedly the official policy is that these areas are public spaces and you can't force them out, but that seems to be BS because they certainly have been doing it along the new Second Avenue stations. It seems to be a question of what they want to do versus what they can do.  I have to believe that the  is somehow involved with those Second Avenue stations.  They want them looking nice for now.  I used the 63rd and Lex station on Saturday and it's half new half old and very deep, meaning it could provide nice warmth in the winter.  I had to take several escalators to reach the platform and during my time there I didn't see one homeless person in any part of the station.  

[Deucey]

25 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

Okay, now we cut that 472 to 275 stations. Okay, the big ones are workable. How do you get more outreach down there for the homless and start that process? 

Get Homeless Police in a JTF with NYPD to do sweeps.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

31 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Get Homeless Police in a JTF with NYPD to do sweeps.

I think this is already done too. It would have to be enforced on a consistent basis and you'd need police dedicated to this particular thing. I don't get the impression that they have cops for that and just focus on it when it seen as a "problem".  

[CenSin]

10 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I would start there.  There are a lot of outdoor stations that don't offer any cover and have limited entrances so those don't need as much attention.  Focus on the big ones that are below grand that are known to be hot spots like 47th - 50th street, Grand Central, Herald Square, Penn Station, etc.  Those are the big ones in my mind where I see hoards of homeless people just camped out everywhere.  It really brings down those stations and makes it difficult for transit workers to keep them clean.  In fact most of the ones above are some of the filthiest in the system. 

You’re right about those hotspots; they are mostly in Manhattan. Coney Island seems to have them outside the station, but not inside. Canal Street has one homeless guy perpetually hovering in or around the Center Street entrance. Most of the other minor Brooklyn stations along Brighton, Culver, 4 Avenue, Sea Beach, and West End don’t seem to have any.

13 hours ago, R42N said:

The MTA could add a weird technicality to get the off the platforms in the stations, but not off the trains, unfortunately. 

The current MTA way of getting people off the train is to take the train out of passenger service. Do it at each end of the run (or maybe 50% of them) and it makes the train a less hospitable place for loiterers.

[R42N]

5 minutes ago, CenSin said:

 

The current MTA way of getting people off the train is to take the train out of passenger service. Do it at each end of the run (or maybe 50% of them) and it makes the train a less hospitable place for loiterers.

That works sometimes, but that’s a huge inconvienece at other times. Picture a customer, freezing, waiting for 15+ minutes at Astoria-Ditmars (where there is no covered protection) for a late night , only to have the train come and be taken out of service for a few minutes, only to quickly resurrect back in service.

[INDman]

The bigges issue I run into when I ask for police assistance with a homeless condition is that unless they are violating the rules, not much can be done. They can’t be ejected because they are condisdered to have paid the fare. Even if the do violate the rules of the system, there is no point for the cop to issue a summons since it is very unlikely that a homeless person will ever pay it. 

What I would love to see with the new contactless payment system that the TA is looking into, is a way for police or stations personnel to be able to read an individuals fare card to see if they paid. No card or proof of payment, ejection from the system and maybe a summons too.

[bobtehpanda]

On 11/5/2017 at 9:04 AM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

 

The problem is we have a serious affordable housing issue here. De Blasio has admitted that he has failed to lessen the problem too. We have more and more families pushed out into the streets and the homeless crisis is worse than ever due to skyrocketing rents. Each borough is feeling it, but it's especially true in the poorest parts of the city. This is where de Blasio is a fault. He has enjoyed seeing more and more service jobs being created. Tourist jobs DON'T pay anything. Some guy working in Times Square making minimum wage cannot afford $1400 in rent. Just not possible. You add to the fact that very few New Yorkers earn even $50,000 a year, let alone above that and it should be clear to see what the problem is. The rents overall are taking its toll even on businesses. You see so many vacancies with businesses shuttering because they too can't afford the rent. This is what Lhota and Cuomo was referring to. The City needs to step in and something because eventually high rents will have severe consequences for the City. Less tax revenue and you'll see this problem get even worse which is saying something.

The problem is that there is too much demand, for not enough housing, so whatever little is produced is only available for the wealthy. We need to "build, baby, build." We need to produce housing like we've never produced before, in transit rich areas, with NYCHA, with private housing, all of it. It's possible to build out of the current crisis. Painful, but possible.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

5 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

The problem is that there is too much demand, for not enough housing, so whatever little is produced is only available for the wealthy. We need to "build, baby, build." We need to produce housing like we've never produced before, in transit rich areas, with NYCHA, with private housing, all of it. It's possible to build out of the current crisis. Painful, but possible.

The thing is land is so expensive here and there's so much red tape that you have to build luxury to turn a profit. That's just a way of life here in NYC for developers. The "affordable" housing here seems to be for the very poor or families, but middle to upper middle young people are left out, and it's the middle class that's being pushed out. The real issue is the need to destabilize rents and allow for more market-rate apartments. That would then lower rents and put less pressure on the rental market. What I predict is more people that are young getting roommates and unable to afford rents on their own. People my age seem increasingly unable to which is alarming. Then again when you have rents approaching mortgages, it shouldn't be a surprise.

[biGC323232]

On 11/5/2017 at 12:04 PM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

 

The problem is we have a serious affordable housing issue here. De Blasio has admitted that he has failed to lessen the problem too. We have more and more families pushed out into the streets and the homeless crisis is worse than ever due to skyrocketing rents. Each borough is feeling it, but it's especially true in the poorest parts of the city. This is where de Blasio is a fault. He has enjoyed seeing more and more service jobs being created. Tourist jobs DON'T pay anything. Some guy working in Times Square making minimum wage cannot afford $1400 in rent. Just not possible. You add to the fact that very few New Yorkers earn even $50,000 a year, let alone above that and it should be clear to see what the problem is. The rents overall are taking its toll even on businesses. You see so many vacancies with businesses shuttering because they too can't afford the rent. This is what Lhota and Cuomo was referring to. The City needs to step in and something because eventually high rents will have severe consequences for the City. Less tax revenue and you'll see this problem get even worse which is saying something.

I agree....The cost of living is insane...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

48 minutes ago, biGC323232 said:

I agree....The cost of living is insane...

What's going to be a struggle is for the younger people just graduating college, even some on here. They're going to be in for a shock. Usually that first job doesn't pay that great, and in order to live on your own even in the worst neighborhood, you need to earn over $50,000, let alone a nice neighborhood. Not too long ago you could actually earn say $40,000 a year and find something, but not now.