Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
Via Garibaldi 8

Cops will stop busting turnstile jumpers

Recommended Posts

METRO

Cops will stop busting turnstile jumpers: source

By Shawn Cohen and Laura Italiano

February 1, 2018 | 4:21pm | Updated

shutterstock_661260505.jpg?quality=90&st

Shutterstock

Manhattan turnstile jumpers can jump for joy — with both prosecutors and cops admitting they plan to look the other way starting today, sources tell The Post.

The Manhattan DA’s office had in September announced that it will be going easy on most people arrested for fare beating — dismissing their charges provided they completed a program or stayed clean for half a year.

But now, the office has told the NYPD that it will not be prosecuting fare beaters at all. Instead, prosecutors will “DTP,” or decline to prosecute, almost every case brought to arraignment.

Given that, transit cops are expected to not even bother stopping turnstile jumpers, one police source said, predicting a “free for all.”

“Why would a person stop for the cop in the first place?” the source said.

“Everyone is scrambling a bit trying to figure out how the department is going to proceed,” the source said.

“This could be a big tipping point for public order,” the source added.

“Cops will be hesitant to stop fare beaters just to give them a ticket when they can’t effectively arrest and prosecute a person who refuses to cooperate. At that point, why the hell would anyone pay to get on the subway?”

Chief Assistant District Attorney Karen Friedman said this policy shift “marks the next step in our ongoing work to reduce inequality and unnecessary incarceration by ending the prosecution of low-level, non-violent offenses and offenders that do not post a risk to public safety or belong in our criminal courts.”

Police sources, however, say this quality-of-life enforcement in the subways sometimes take dangerous individuals off the street. Fare evaders sometimes have outstanding criminal warrants and are carrying weapons.

Fare beating is also where cop assassin Alexander Bonds had some of his first interactions with police, before he fatally shot officer Miosotis Familia in The Bronx last July.

Source: https://nypost.com/2018/02/01/cops-will-stop-busting-turnstile-jumpers-source/       

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

METRO

Cops will stop busting turnstile jumpers: source

By Shawn Cohen and Laura Italiano

February 1, 2018 | 4:21pm | Updated

shutterstock_661260505.jpg?quality=90&st

Shutterstock

Manhattan turnstile jumpers can jump for joy — with both prosecutors and cops admitting they plan to look the other way starting today, sources tell The Post.

The Manhattan DA’s office had in September announced that it will be going easy on most people arrested for fare beating — dismissing their charges provided they completed a program or stayed clean for half a year.

But now, the office has told the NYPD that it will not be prosecuting fare beaters at all. Instead, prosecutors will “DTP,” or decline to prosecute, almost every case brought to arraignment.

Given that, transit cops are expected to not even bother stopping turnstile jumpers, one police source said, predicting a “free for all.”

“Why would a person stop for the cop in the first place?” the source said.

“Everyone is scrambling a bit trying to figure out how the department is going to proceed,” the source said.

“This could be a big tipping point for public order,” the source added.

“Cops will be hesitant to stop fare beaters just to give them a ticket when they can’t effectively arrest and prosecute a person who refuses to cooperate. At that point, why the hell would anyone pay to get on the subway?”

Chief Assistant District Attorney Karen Friedman said this policy shift “marks the next step in our ongoing work to reduce inequality and unnecessary incarceration by ending the prosecution of low-level, non-violent offenses and offenders that do not post a risk to public safety or belong in our criminal courts.”

Police sources, however, say this quality-of-life enforcement in the subways sometimes take dangerous individuals off the street. Fare evaders sometimes have outstanding criminal warrants and are carrying weapons.

Fare beating is also where cop assassin Alexander Bonds had some of his first interactions with police, before he fatally shot officer Miosotis Familia in The Bronx last July.

Source: https://nypost.com/2018/02/01/cops-will-stop-busting-turnstile-jumpers-source/       

 

Expect more crime in the subways now that unsavory people will get in without any resistance. Quality-of-life crimes correlate with poverty and low socioeconomic status. Not saying that Wall Street criminals should get a break, but now ordinary folks will be screw from the front and from the back by the very poor and the very rich simultaneously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CenSin said:

Expect more crime in the subways now that unsavory people will get in without any resistance. Quality-of-life crimes correlate with poverty and low socioeconomic status. Not saying that Wall Street criminals should get a break, but now ordinary folks will be screw from the front and from the back by the very poor and the very rich simultaneously.

Yep. You can't afford to pay or don't want to pay? No worries.  Just jump the turnstiles. <_< This is some administration we have. On the other hand, this same idiotic mayor wants to subsidize these peoples' rides when they don't even  pay to begin with, so you're okay with starving the (MTA) of funding, but yet you don't think that the City should contribute more.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

On the other hand, this same idiotic mayor wants to subsidize these peoples' rides when they don't even  pay to begin with

That's some idiotic logic right there. People who cant afford to pay the standard fare doesn't mean they won't pay a subsidized fare. I hate DeBlasio as much as the next guy but metrocard subsidies are a top priority. Fare beaters who can't afford metrocards should be helped, not punished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

That's some idiotic logic right there. People who cant afford to pay the standard fare doesn't mean they won't pay a subsidized fare. I hate DeBlasio as much as the next guy but metrocard subsidies are a top priority. Fare beaters who can't afford metrocards should be helped, not punished.

There's a stat from the DailyNews that said that 43% of the farebeaters are youth.  

Quote

The lost revenue from the pint-size scofflaws is not small change. It costs the agency millions of dollars a year, the report says.

Some parents told the Daily News Tuesday they had no qualms about beating the system.

"The MTA's dumb. ... As long as they don't enforce it, we'll keep doing it," west Harlem mom Janet Carrion, 42, said.

Carrion, who works as a baby-sitter, doesn't pay for her own boys, ages 8 and 9, to ride the subway.

"We pay for every little thing, and the fare is too expensive to begin with," she said. "I don't feel guilty."

Store clerk Aricellis Maldonado, 28, of Crown Heights, Brooklyn, never pays for her 9-year-old son, who is about 2 inches over the limit.

"No one's ever stopped me, and until they do, we'll keep doing this," Maldonado said.

Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/43-subway-fare-beaters-kids-report-finds-costing-mta-millions-article-1.160091

I think you're assuming a lot in terms of those who aren't paying, and furthermore, no one is forcing them to use the system. If they can't pay the fare, they can walk, bike it and so on like so many others do.  As Janet Carrion says "The MTA's dumb." In other words, why should we pay if we can ride for free? That seems to be the stance more than anything.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the initiative to stop with these low level infractions because of inequality and all that and I completely support it but this seems like the worst possible thing to publicize and make readily available

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't expect this to last too long, given that people find out they can jump turnstiles without getting prosecuted, it wont be long before a huge majority of riders decide to beat the fare in a way the cops essentially gave to them (and without any risks) for convenience reasons. H*ll, besides poverty or criminal reasons, it might make some riders even happier that they don't need to pay for a subway system with too many problems (in their opinion) to justify the current fare. A questionable idea at best, a somewhat mediocre one at worst.

Of course, seeing as it said "most people" in the text, I hope some security is retained if they actually plan to continue with the idea, a complete lack of any security at turnstiles is absurd.  

Edited by NoHacksJustKhaks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

43% of the farebeaters are youth

Yeah but that means 57% percent are not youth and presumably low income peoples.

 

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:
Quote

Carrion, who works as a baby-sitter, doesn't pay for her own boys, ages 8 and 9, to ride the subway.

"We pay for every little thing, and the fare is too expensive to begin with," she said. "I don't feel guilty."

Store clerk Aricellis Maldonado, 28, of Crown Heights, Brooklyn, never pays for her 9-year-old son, who is about 2 inches over the limit.

"No one's ever stopped me, and until they do, we'll keep doing this," Maldonado said.

 

I don't know what you are trying to prove with these anecdotes, that people don't pay for their children, who are just a few inches over the height limit? How would you even realistically enforce this anyway , hire people to sit at every turnstile and measure every child that comes through the gates?

You can still get a ticket if you get caught fare dodging, which is how it always should have been, throwing someone in Rikers for not paying 2.75$ is outright silly, in addition to a complete waste of correctional resources.

4 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

“Cops will be hesitant to stop fare beaters just to give them a ticket when they can’t effectively arrest and prosecute a person who refuses to cooperate. At that point, why the hell would anyone pay to get on the subway?”

Another absurd claim, why would the inability to prosecute deter cops from writing tickets?  Cops still arrest people for pointless shit anyway, just like how that women got arrested for having her feet on the seat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

Yeah but that means 57% percent are not youth and presumably low income peoples.

 

And so that means that they should get a freebie? Is that the idea?  As I said, no one is forcing these people to ride.  They can walk or bike.   Imagine that... <_<

11 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

I don't know what you are trying to prove with these anecdotes, that people don't pay for their children, who are just a few inches over the height limit? How would you even realistically enforce this anyway , hire people to sit at every turnstile and measure every child that comes through the gates?

You can still get a ticket if you get caught fare dodging, which is how it always should have been, throwing someone in Rikers for not paying 2.75$ is outright silly, in addition to a complete waste of correctional resources.

 

That people will take advantage if you let them, that's what.  As the lady said "The MTA's dumb. ... As long as they don't enforce it, we'll keep doing it," west Harlem mom Janet Carrion, 42, said.  You can point to some people being poor, and I'll point to them using that as a convenient excuse.  If you can afford an expensive cell phone, nice sneakers, etc., maybe you aren't oh so poor.  If you are prioritizing and you still can't afford the fare that's one thing, but if you're "poor" because you can't prioritize your finances accordingly, well that just means you can't manage money.  

11 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

Another absurd claim, why would the inability to prosecute deter cops from writing tickets?  Cops still arrest people for pointless shit anyway, just like how that women got arrested for having her feet on the seat.

The point is to send a message that farebeating is NOT okay.  A lot of these people won't pay the fine and will just continue on as if nothing happened, and they'll continue to farebeat, so yes it's pointless from that point of view.  Additionally, as the article mentions, some of these outstanding individuals are guilty of more serious crimes, so that's another reason keep things the way that they are.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a load of crap.

As far as fare evasions go, they should at least still write the summons like they do with people that smoke weed nowadays, otherwise what the hell is the point of having that law? Using this logic, I can also go into my local Rite Aid and steal everything in the store because the cops won't stop me. Fare evasion is basically shoplifting against the MTA, so why the hell are they emasculating this law for?

Now if we were talking about petty things like taking up more than one seat on the train at 2AM, banning sleeping on the subway, or arresting people for exiting through the emergency exit I would applaud the move. But refusing to pay for a service being provided is at minimum a fineable offense anywhere else in this country, so why the hell would anyone direct a police department to not reprimand people that refuse to pay for a service?

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, paulrivera said:

What a load of crap.

As far as fare evasions go, they should at least still write the summons like they do with people that smoke weed nowadays, otherwise what the hell is the point of having that law? Using this logic, I can also go into my local Rite Aid and steal everything in the store because the cops won't stop me. Fare evasion is basically shoplifting against the MTA, so why the hell are they emasculating this law for?

Now if we were talking about petty things like taking up more than one seat on the train at 2AM, banning sleeping on the subway, or arresting people for exiting through the emergency exit I would applaud the move. But refusing to pay for a service being provided is at minimum a fineable offense anywhere else in this country, so why the hell would anyone direct a police department to not reprimand people that refuse to pay for a service?

That's exactly how I see it.   If we're giving a pass to poor people in this case, what about in other instances? Where does it end?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were to clickbait headline this, it'd read:

"Manhattan DA and NYPD to (MTA) : Fare Evaders are your problem, not ours”

 

I don’t have an issue with subsidized fares (despite me being a pro flat tax liberal) because $2.75 is a bigger issue for lower income people in a high rent city than us with mid-to-upper middle class incomes, but theft is theft.

Stealing bread counting as a third strike is excessive (for those old enough to remember Bush 41 and Clinton times), but not prosecuting encourages more negative actions.

(MTA) being a state agency, (MTA) PD should be patrolling (MTA) assets and prosecuting infractions in NYS courts, not NYC courts - even if its an administrative law court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Deucey said:

If I were to clickbait headline this, it'd read:

"Manhattan DA and NYPD to (MTA) : Fare Evaders are your problem, not ours”

 

I don’t have an issue with subsidized fares (despite me being a pro flat tax liberal) because $2.75 is a bigger issue for lower income people in a high rent city than us with mid-to-upper middle class incomes, but theft is theft.

Stealing bread counting as a third strike is excessive (for those old enough to remember Bush 41 and Clinton times), but not prosecuting encourages more negative actions.

(MTA) being a state agency, (MTA) PD should be patrolling (MTA) assets and prosecuting infractions in NYS courts, not NYC courts - even if its an administrative law court.

I think the whole thing opens up a Pandora's box.  If they are truly poor, then they're likely already living in some sort of subsidized housing.  What people seem to forget is that NYC is like the handout capital.  Free this, welfare that.  Case-in-point. I shop at Whole Foods, and on occasion I'm surprised to see people in there using their food stamps to shop there.  I mean they're free to shop there, but why would you shop at the most expensive supermarket when you're living on food stamps? I shop there, but I can afford to on my own dime, not someone else's.  This is the kind of thing that I'm talking about.  Some people are just horrible with managing money, and we as a society should not be held hostage to such foolishness.  I mean really, if I go out and blow my money and can't pay my rent, well should that be your problem? That's how I look at it.  We as a society cannot rescue those that are simply irresponsible with money, which is what this City wants to do, and disguise the problem as it being "poor folks". 

I don't know about you, but if you're truly poor, I would think things like pricey cell phones, expensive clothing and the like would be off limits.  I mean sometimes I chuckle when I see what I see on the subways.  I have an expensive coat on, but I paid for it with my money, yet you have these types that can't afford the fare but they have expensive coats on and this and that.  Keeping up with the Joneses on taxpayer dollars.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

And so that means that they should get a freebie? Is that the idea?  As I said, no one is forcing these people to ride.  They can walk or bike.   How about that? <_<

Thats a good point, maybe people who need do commute from ENY or the Bronx into Manhattan should just walk to their job, why hasn't anyone told them this is an option?

11 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

You can point to some people being poor, and I'll point to them using that as a convenient excuse.  If you can afford an expensive cell phone, and nice sneakers, maybe you aren't oh so poor.  If you are prioritizing and you still can't afford the fare that's one thing, but if you're "poor" because you can't prioritize accordingly, well that just means you can't manage money.

Whoa dude you just figured it out. Poverty doesn't exist and its actually just an excuse to use the Subway for free. Also nice racial allusion with the sneakers but we can just skip over that part. 

You're making this out to be  a bigger issue than it actually is. The type of people who always have the nicest sneakers on or the newest gadgets aren't the ones pretending to be or asking for handouts poor.  121$ a month for transit is a lot of money for people living in the outer neighborhoods of the city, and people like single parents, people with costly medical conditions, or people on minimum wage the cost can be crippling. 

26 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

  A lot of these people won't pay the fine and will just continue on as if nothing happened, and they'll continue to farebeat, so yes it's pointless from that point of view.

Yeah and If you don't pay the fine you get a bench summons.

The people criticizing the move really don't have a concept of how much public money it costs to process all these cases. The reason for discontinuing prosecution of fare-beaters is because it was clogging up the court system.

 

11 minutes ago, paulrivera said:

As far as fare evasions go, they should at least still write the summons

Don't worry they still do.

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I shop at Whole Foods, and on occasion I'm surprised to see people in there using their food stamps to shop there.  I mean they're free to shop there, but why would you shop at the most expensive supermarket when you're living on food stamps?

Dollarwise whole foods is not significantly more expensive then a local supermarket, and many corner bodegas don't accept EBT (foodstamps). In addition, whole foods (the one on 14th, at least) has one of the best butchers in the city, in addition to carrying a wide selection of healthier foods then a Morten Williams or a Keyfoods would. 

9 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I mean really, if I go out and blow my money and can't pay my rent, well should that be your problem? That's how I look at it.  We as a society cannot rescue those that are simply irresponsible with money, which is what this City wants to do, and disguise the problem as it being "poor folks". 

Spoken like a true middle class American.

 

Just some quotes to read

Quote

"Instead of being brought from the police station to court, those defendants generally will be diverted into community service or social programs, and if they comply, the fare-beating charge will be dropped, Mr. Vance said. An exception will be made only when the police have strong reason to believe that the defendant is someone who poses a risk to public safety, like a sex offender." -New York Times

"“For too long, prosecution of fare evasion as a crime has disproportionately impacted people of color, bogged down our courts, and even put immigrants at risk of deportation,” said Councilman Rory I. Lancman of Queens, the chairman of the Court and Legal Services Committee and who has led an effort to subsidize fares. ”Diverting fare evasion cases away from the criminal justice system is a smart and sensible policy.”" - New York Times

“They are still making more arrests than we’d like," Chief Assistant District Attorney Karen Friedman Agnifilo said in an interview with POLITICO. "So we said to them, 'We are no longer in the process of prosecuting fare beating.'” - Politico

Friedman Agnifilo said that the change came under an effort by the office to rethink consequences for certain types of crime.

“When DA Vance took office in 2010, we inherited a system where we basically took whatever the police department brought to us. We had about 100,000 misdemeanors at the time," she said. "We just sort of said to ourselves, 'What if we decided ourselves what we thought was worthy of the criminal justice system?'”

She said the system couldn’t handle the cases that were brought in.

“We were finding that thousands of cases every year were being adjourned because there was no available court part," she said.

Sometimes, for example, a fare beating case might get a court assignment while a domestic violence case would be adjourned because there wasn’t an available court. - Politico

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

1. Thats a good point, maybe people who need do commute from ENY or the Bronx into Manhattan should just walk to their job, why hasn't anyone told them this is an option?

2. Whoa dude you just figured it out. Poverty doesn't exist and its actually just an excuse to use the Subway for free. Also nice racial allusion with the sneakers but we can just skip over that part. 

3. You're making this out to be  a bigger issue than it actually is. The type of people who always have the nicest sneakers on or the newest gadgets aren't the ones pretending to be or asking for handouts poor.  121$ a month for transit is a lot of money for people living in the outer neighborhoods of the city, and people like single parents, people with costly medical conditions, or people on minimum wage the cost can be crippling. 

Yeah and If you don't pay the fine you get a bench summons.

The people criticizing the move really don't have a concept of how much public money it costs to process all these cases. The reason for discontinuing prosecution of fare-beaters is because it was clogging up the court system.

 

4. Dollarwise whole foods is not significantly more expensive then a local supermarket, and many corner bodegas don't accept EBT (foodstamps). In addition, whole foods (the one on 14th, at least) has one of the best butchers in the city, in addition to carrying a wide selection of healthier foods then a Morten Williams or a Keyfoods would. 

5. Spoken like a true middle class American.

 

6. Just some quotes to read

 

1. You can use that if you want, but I see plenty of people that are likely poor and do just that.  No one said it was easy or pretty, but people that are poor... Some of them certainly do it.  

2. I think you have a reading problem.  What I said was that some people aren't truly poor and have a management problem when it comes to finances. If they were truly poor, they wouldn't able to afford what many would consider "luxuries".  Fancy sneakers are a luxury, not a necessity.  Same is true with a cell phone, so you can take offense if you want, but that's the truth.  I see these so called poor people wearing coats that are almost as pricey as mine and yet they're poor.  Please.  <_<

3. I'm aware of it.  You take issue with the monies spent prosecuting people that steal services, but you have no problem with handouts being given for these very same people.  Talk about idiotic logic.  

4.  On average I spend anywhere from $50 - 80 per visit and make about two three trips a week.  Someone on food stamps should probably not be shopping at a store that has expensive specialty items.  You're right... For the store brand items, they are generally not too expensive, but if you buy any meat or anything else, it costs, so I doubt these people going there are spending small amounts, especially given how much they have in those shopping carts.

5. No, spoken like someone who earns their own money instead of looking for handouts.

6. Noted, but that just means that we need to revamp our court system to handle more cases, not resort to cop-outs like this.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I think the whole thing opens up a Pandora's box.  If they are truly poor, then they're likely already living in some sort of subsidized housing.  What people seem to forget is that NYC is like the handout capital.  Free this, welfare that.  Case-in-point. I shop at Whole Foods, and on occasion I'm surprised to see people in there using their food stamps to shop there.  I mean they're free to shop there, but why would you shop at the most expensive supermarket when you're living on food stamps? I shop there, but I can afford to on my own dime, not someone else's.  This is the kind of thing that I'm talking about.  Some people are just horrible with managing money, and we as a society should not be held hostage to such foolishness.  I mean really, if I go out and blow my money and can't pay my rent, well should that be your problem? That's how I look at it.  We as a society cannot rescue those that are simply irresponsible with money, which is what this City wants to do, and disguise the problem as it being "poor folks". 

I don't know about you, but if you're truly poor, I would think things like pricey cell phones, expensive clothing and the like would be off limits.  I mean sometimes I chuckle when I see what I see on the subways.  I have an expensive coat on, but I paid for it with my money, yet you have these types that can't afford the fare but they have expensive coats on and this and that.  Keeping up with the Joneses on taxpayer dollars.

I don’t think that being poor in the richest country in history means you should live like impoverished Bangladeshi. Besides, as far as phones, few non-working poor are getting AT&T iPhones- they’re using metropcs, boost or one of the MVNOs that do BOGOS or secondhand purchases like LetGo.

When it comes to food stamps/EBT, if there’s an obesity and diabetes problem with the demographic that gets this program and Whole Foods/Trader Joe and similar offer healthier alternatives to what’s at C-Town and ShopRite, isn’t that a good thing - especially since the higher prices lead to fewer junk food purchases?

And the discount fares, that could easily be done by making folks in low income programs swipe their EBT or cash benefits card and the software change the rate or validate the rate eligibility.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Deucey said:

1. I don’t think that being poor in the richest country in history means you should live like impoverished Bangladeshi. Besides, as far as phones, few non-working poor are getting AT&T iPhones- they’re using metropcs, boost or one of the MVNOs that do BOGOS or secondhand purchases like LetGo.

2. When it comes to food stamps/EBT, if there’s an obesity and diabetes problem with the demographic that gets this program and Whole Foods/Trader Joe and similar offer healthier alternatives to what’s at C-Town and ShopRite, isn’t that a good thing - especially since the higher prices lead to fewer junk food purchases?

And the discount fares, that could easily be done by making folks in low income programs swipe their EBT or cash benefits card and the software change the rate or validate the rate eligibility.

 

1.  Of course not, but my point is that you don't live beyond your means. 

2.  lol Whole Foods doesn't automatically mean healthy.  There's plenty of garbage sold in Whole Foods too if you really read the labels on some items.  If you're a savvy shopper you can shop in ShopRite for sure, as I did plenty of times when I lived on Staten Island.  They offered plenty of healthy organic options at reasonable prices.  It's like going to Whole Foods and buying madelines, organic butter and other fattening foods and saying well it's Whole Foods, so it has to be healthy. lol  I'll give you C-Town though. I don't think I've shopped in one, but they seem to be in low income areas, so I imagine that they don't carry decent produce, or organic or GMO-free options.

3.  I don't know. I just think there's already enough subsidizing going on as it is.  Subsidized housing already is a huge bonus because housing is the biggest expense for everyone.  If your rent is low and you don't pay market rate rent which usually goes up considerably each time renewal is due, you already have things in your favor.

 

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

1. You can use that if you want, but I see plenty of people that are likely poor and do just that.  No one said it was easy or pretty, but people that are poor... Some of them certainly do it.  

Do You have anything beside anecdotal evidence to support this claim? I'm calling BS unless I see some actual numbers showing that a significant people walk across boros for their commute.

2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

2. I think you have a reading problem.  What I said was that some people aren't truly poor and have a management problem when it comes to finances. If they were truly poor, they wouldn't able to afford what many would consider "luxuries".  Fancy sneakers are a luxury, not a necessity.  Same is true with a cell phone, so you can take offense if you want, but that's the truth.  I see these so called poor people wearing coats that are almost as pricey as mine and yet they're poor.  Please.  <_<  

No man you missed the point entirely. People who have expensive sneakers/jackets/whatever ARE NOT PRETENDING TO BE POOR AND ASKING FOR HANDOUTS.  I believe that you see people who wear expensive clothing, I do not however believe that those people are asking for handouts or are on welfare.

2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

3. I'm aware of it.  You take issue with the monies spent prosecuting people that steal services, but you have no problem with handouts being given for these very same people.  Talk about idiotic logic.

How is this idiotic logic. Obviously I'd rather have public money directed at helping people in poverty instead of prosecuting fare dodgers.

2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

4.  On average I spend anywhere from $50 - 80 per visit and make about two three trips a week.  Someone on food stamps should probably not be shopping at a store that has expensive specialty items.  You're right... For the store brand items, they are generally not too expensive, but if you buy any meat or anything else, it costs, so I doubt these people going there are spending small amounts, especially given how much they have in those shopping carts.

Anecdotal evidence and your personal experience/opinions does not reflect the majority of people on EBT. Sure, I bet that some people use their EBT irresponsibly but that doesn't mean that everyone on EBT is using it irresponsibly. 

2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

5. No, spoken like someone who earns their own money instead of looking for handouts

"Yeah just stop being poor and go make more money"

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cops will stop nabbing those that hop the turnstile huh.... Lol....

Hell, at this point, may as well barricade the turnstiles & keep the emergency exit door open - that way, you can have whatever s/a's that are left, d*ck around on their cell phones all day or sleep their shift away.....

This not stopping farebeaters shit won't last, but what I'm inclined to think this could open the door for, is zone based fares...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kosciusko said:

Do You have anything beside anecdotal evidence to support this claim? I'm calling BS unless I see some actual numbers showing that a significant people walk across boros for their commute.

No man you missed the point entirely. People who have expensive sneakers/jackets/whatever ARE NOT PRETENDING TO BE POOR AND ASKING FOR HANDOUTS.  I believe that you see people who wear expensive clothing, I do not however believe that those people are asking for handouts or are on welfare.

How is this idiotic logic. Obviously I'd rather have public money directed at helping people in poverty instead of prosecuting fare dodgers.

Anecdotal evidence and your personal experience/opinions does not reflect the majority of people on EBT. Sure, I bet that some people use their EBT irresponsibly but that doesn't mean that everyone on EBT is using it irresponsibly. 

"Yeah just stop being poor and go make more money"

1. No the ones with the expensive gear on are the ones not paying.

2. What evidence is needed? It's physically possible for someone to bike to work. Plenty of people do so. You want to throw this bit out about biking long distances to make my comment seem so absurd, but more and more people are biking, so obviously it's possible.

3. Yes, work more to make money... Imagine that... <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

No the ones with the expensive gear on are the ones not paying.

Even if this statement is true, anecdotal evidence is not representative of the majority. Just because you see some people wearing what look like expensive clothes jumping the turnstiles doesn't mean that everyone jumping turnstiles is rich/just pretending to be poor. 

Also, just because someone has nice clothing doesn't mean they are not struggling. They could have bought it second-hand, or bartered for it from a friend, or perhaps they work for the company that designs/retails it. Maybe the expensive sneakers were birthday a gift from his wife who saved up for months to afford them? Don't make assumptions about people you don't know.

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

2. What evidence is needed? It's physically possible for someone to bike to work. Plenty of people do so. You want to throw this bit out about biking long distances to make my comment seem so absurd, but more and more people are biking, so obviously it's possible.

You're moving the goalposts, reread my post, my original assertion was about poor people who have to commute long distances.

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

3. Yes, work more to make money... Imagine that... <_<

The NYC transit forums isn't a place to have a debate about the vast challenges poor people face when it comes to escaping the cycle of poverty, so I'll just leave this part be.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm no more enforcement of fare beating huh... THATS GREAT... Free fare for everyone... no id= no ticket and there's ABSOLUTELY nothing they can do about it. Now... NYers when you feel like MTA ain't worth your money like the ladies in the articles states just hop the turnstiles... and pee in on the subway cars too... because cops couldn't Ticket that also...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

Even if this statement is true, anecdotal evidence is not representative of the majority. Just because you see some people wearing what look like expensive clothes jumping the turnstiles doesn't mean that everyone jumping turnstiles is rich/just pretending to be poor. 

Also, just because someone has nice clothing doesn't mean they are not struggling. They could have bought it second-hand, or bartered for it from a friend, or perhaps they work for the company that designs/retails it. Maybe the expensive sneakers were birthday a gift from his wife who saved up for months to afford them? Don't make assumptions about people you don't know.

You're moving the goalposts, reread my post, my original assertion was about poor people who have to commute long distances.

The NYC transit forums isn't a place to have a debate about the vast challenges poor people face when it comes to escaping the cycle of poverty, so I'll just leave this part be.

I do not believe that the $121 unlimited fare is excessive... They get subsidized housing, EBT. They should be much better off than average NYers. If they couldn't spare $121 from the THOUSANDS of dollars they saved using subsidized program it's either they are unwillingness to spend or are paid less than Mcdonalds wages

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Yep. You can't afford to pay or don't want to pay? No worries.  Just jump the turnstiles. <_< This is some administration we have. On the other hand, this same idiotic mayor wants to subsidize these peoples' rides when they don't even  pay to begin with, so you're okay with starving the (MTA) of funding, but yet you don't think that the City should contribute more.  

“🖕 the middle class” is the only message I’ve been getting from the government both large and small.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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