Jump to content

Advocates for Homeless Sue N.Y.C. Subway System Over Covid Rules


YankeesPwnMets

Recommended Posts

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/nyregion/homeless-nyc-subway.html

This is a few days old, but something about this really befuddles me...

Homeless "advocates" believe that "compassion" for the homeless involves suing a transit agency because they are not doing enough to act like de facto homeless shelter?

Am I being punked? This has to be a shitpost, right? This is what the Urban Justice Center considers to be "justice" and a "safety net" for homeless people? The right for them to live amongst piss, shit, and rats in trains and train stations? If this wasn't in the Times, I'd be convinced that this was an Eric Cartman shitpost.

 

 

Edited by YankeesPwnMets
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Well, there's a decent legal argument that a public utility – specifically one that you nominally pay to enter – should not curtail service just to exclude a certain group of people.

I haven't read the full suit, but generally the legal standard for these sorts of things is called 'arbitrary and capricious.' You have to prove that a decision was made arbitrarily and capriciously. So if I shut down the subway because a storm is coming, that's clearly for good reason with safety involved. But if I keep the trains running but announce that, say, @Via Garibaldi 8 is banned from riding them, unless I can come up with a very specific reason for his exclusions that would be arbitrary and capricious. Obviously my lawyers and I will spend a few sleepless nights on this, but I'll probably lose in court, and VG8 will be allowed to take the subway should he wish. Luckily, he prefers the express bus.

The question here is, since the MTA is not actually shutting down – trains are running at their normal schedule, just without passengers – and this shutdown is really designed to keep certain passengers out of the system, is that decision justified by public safety and health requirements (a high standard: you'd have to prove the homeless were a source of crime, for example, which is pretty broad strokes, given that some homeless people act badly and many do not) or is it arbitrary and capricious? This is a decision the MTA might lose, because our society is pretty much designed around the principle that you can't refuse or deny service to paying customers. Not that this will really matter, since the system will reopen anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, MHV9218 said:

Well, there's a decent legal argument that a public utility – specifically one that you nominally pay to enter – should not curtail service just to exclude a certain group of people.

I haven't read the full suit, but generally the legal standard for these sorts of things is called 'arbitrary and capricious.' You have to prove that a decision was made arbitrarily and capriciously. So if I shut down the subway because a storm is coming, that's clearly for good reason with safety involved. But if I keep the trains running but announce that, say, @Via Garibaldi 8 is banned from riding them, unless I can come up with a very specific reason for his exclusions that would be arbitrary and capricious. Obviously my lawyers and I will spend a few sleepless nights on this, but I'll probably lose in court, and VG8 will be allowed to take the subway should he wish. Luckily, he prefers the express bus.

The question here is, since the MTA is not actually shutting down – trains are running at their normal schedule, just without passengers – and this shutdown is really designed to keep certain passengers out of the system, is that decision justified by public safety and health requirements (a high standard: you'd have to prove the homeless were a source of crime, for example, which is pretty broad strokes, given that some homeless people act badly and many do not) or is it arbitrary and capricious? This is a decision the MTA might lose, because our society is pretty much designed around the principle that you can't refuse or deny service to paying customers. Not that this will really matter, since the system will reopen anyway.

This lawsuit is ridiculous. It's been made clear from the beginning that they were shutting down the system to clean because of the pandemic. I don't see them winning it, but stranger things have happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the MTA's lawyers will have to prove that:

1) the cleaning can't be accomplished if there are people anywhere the system

2) the cleaning is really making a difference

3) people couldn't be in the system at other stops/stations beyond the terminals during the cleaning period.

Given that the trains are still running and the cleaning only occurs at terminals, that might be tricky to prove. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, MHV9218 said:

Well, there's a decent legal argument that a public utility – specifically one that you nominally pay to enter – should not curtail service just to exclude a certain group of people.

I haven't read the full suit, but generally the legal standard for these sorts of things is called 'arbitrary and capricious.' You have to prove that a decision was made arbitrarily and capriciously. So if I shut down the subway because a storm is coming, that's clearly for good reason with safety involved. But if I keep the trains running but announce that, say, @Via Garibaldi 8 is banned from riding them, unless I can come up with a very specific reason for his exclusions that would be arbitrary and capricious. Obviously my lawyers and I will spend a few sleepless nights on this, but I'll probably lose in court, and VG8 will be allowed to take the subway should he wish. Luckily, he prefers the express bus.

The question here is, since the MTA is not actually shutting down – trains are running at their normal schedule, just without passengers – and this shutdown is really designed to keep certain passengers out of the system, is that decision justified by public safety and health requirements (a high standard: you'd have to prove the homeless were a source of crime, for example, which is pretty broad strokes, given that some homeless people act badly and many do not) or is it arbitrary and capricious? This is a decision the MTA might lose, because our society is pretty much designed around the principle that you can't refuse or deny service to paying customers. Not that this will really matter, since the system will reopen anyway.

My understanding is that these advocates believe the rules are arbitrary because the MTA banned activities typically associated with the homeless (eg, coming in with large shopping carts) but not other activities such as performing, campaigning, etc..

.. to which I say: ban those activities too then. Forgive me social justice police for believing that the subway is a place for people to get on at point A and get off at point B, not to serve as a homeless shelter or to peddle snake oil or to perform

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

This lawsuit is ridiculous. It's been made clear from the beginning that they were shutting down the system to clean because of the pandemic. I don't see them winning it, but stranger things have happened.

But the evidence thus far shows public transport isn’t a Covid spreader, and that the cleanings aren’t doing much since Covid isn’t proved to be spread from surface contact.

I suspect that’s why the shutdown was reduced to two hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Deucey said:

But the evidence thus far shows public transport isn’t a Covid spreader, and that the cleanings aren’t doing much since Covid isn’t proved to be spread from surface contact.

I suspect that’s why the shutdown was reduced to two hours.

I don't know any passenger that has not enjoyed having clean subways. If I'm the (MTA) , I would argue that ridership on the subways has plummeted, and riders DO care about having clean trains, regardless of what studies say. They need to be doing EVERYTHING they can to get riders back, and I can tell you right now that I have a number of commuters in my advocacy group that also use the subways and they have been avoiding them like the plague. 

It was reduced to two hours because of severe pressure by advocacy groups and elected officials. A number of us have been saying that the subways need to re-open because the (MTA) has done a HORRENDOUS job on some lines with providing overnight service. Some lines are only running once and hour in each direction, and they don't even have enough drivers for that. There are people trying to get to work that are essential workers and they are stuck, so they need to do better, and telling the riding public that they're running as many buses as they can is not getting them to work, so my group has been saying, yes, re-open them, BUT don't stop the cleaning. Our subway system needs to be cleaner and it should be.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I don't know any passenger that has not enjoyed having clean subways. If I'm the (MTA) , I would argue that ridership on the subways has plummeted, and riders DO care about having clean trains, regardless of what studies say. They need to be doing EVERYTHING they can to get riders back, and I can tell you right now that I have a number of commuters in my advocacy group that also use the subways and they have been avoiding them like the plague. 

It was reduced to two hours because of severe pressure by advocacy groups and elected officials. A number of us have been saying that the subways need to re-open because the (MTA) has done a HORRENDOUS job on some lines with providing overnight service. Some lines are only running once and hour in each direction, and they don't even have enough drivers for that. There are people trying to get to work that are essential workers and they are stuck, so they need to do better, and telling the riding public that they're running as many buses as they can is not getting them to work, so my group has been saying, yes, re-open them, BUT don't stop the cleaning. Our subway system needs to be cleaner and it should be.

Remember I said in the other post how (MTA) and (NYCT) before never factored in cleaning to regular budgets and - roughly quoting myself - ‘if it weren’t for Covid they never would’ve bought so much as a bottle of Fabuloso’?

I’m on your side. If the Chicago El is roughly the same age as most of the subway but looks like CTA gave a damn about looks and maintenance, surely (MTA) could’ve been bothered if it weren’t for a deliberate choice to not be.

But their assertion that shutdowns are for deep cleaning (and not to keep hobos out the system) isn’t holding up since overnights they can get the cars during the 15 minute layovers at terminals and they used to hose stations down while passengers were waiting for the next train (you remember stepping on hoses and in puddles of soapy mop water?). The Covid justification isn’t holding up because of direct evidence around the world and in NY.

Plus your and your allies’ pressure factor into going from “OMG!!!!!!” fear to rational thinking on these operations rules.

There’s no reason for (MTA) to not keep deep cleaning everything post-COVID except deliberate intransigence. I only wish they’d used these closures to fix more of the things that cause problems - like cleaning the drains, water intrusion remediation, and subway mosquito abatement (the things that actually contribute to virus spreads). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The shopping cart ban, at least, seems quite reasonable based on the number of "line X is delayed due to a shopping cart on the tracks" emails i used to get before the pandemic

The whole lawsuit seems academic to me, as I'm sure the MTA can argue that most of the hobos engage in illegal activity while in the system (getting high, urinating and defecating, going into tunnels and other off limit areas, etc.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, JAzumah said:

This isn't complicated for the MTA to defend against.

"The governor told us to shut down overnight. The governor will decide when we can open again fully. We are just following instructions. Please dismiss this suit."

That didn't work out so well at Nuremberg.

The case may very well decide the governor doesn't have the authority to do this. He's not a king.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

That didn't work out so well at Nuremberg.

The case may very well decide the governor doesn't have the authority to do this. He's not a king.

It would be nice if this leads to the governor's authority being curtailed. However, it is one thing for the government not to have the authority to do something and another thing entirely to punish them for doing things that they didn't have the authority to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, JAzumah said:

It would be nice if this leads to the governor's authority being curtailed. However, it is one thing for the government not to have the authority to do something and another thing entirely to punish them for doing things that they didn't have the authority to do.

Who's getting punished? No one's asking for a punishment.

It's being litigated as a civil rights suit. Last I checked no specific person or entity paid out restitution in Brown v. Board of Ed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m admittedly not too knowledgeable about how much power a governor has and how the MTA is ran, but why does Cuomo have so much control over the MTA? It seems like the MTA would ideally want to do what is best for themselves but they have to listen to Cuomo and whatever he wants even if goes against the interest of the MTA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

I’m admittedly not too knowledgeable about how much power a governor has and how the MTA is ran, but why does Cuomo have so much control over the MTA? It seems like the MTA would ideally want to do what is best for themselves but they have to listen to Cuomo and whatever he wants even if goes against the interest of the MTA. 

Because NYS appoints more board members than NYC (by virtue of NYS owning the bridges and railroads, and legally financing (MTA) and subsidiary agencies), and those appointments are treated at patronages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

I’m admittedly not too knowledgeable about how much power a governor has and how the MTA is ran, but why does Cuomo have so much control over the MTA? It seems like the MTA would ideally want to do what is best for themselves but they have to listen to Cuomo and whatever he wants even if goes against the interest of the MTA. 

The Governor appoints a lot of members. In addition, the rest of the members are confirmed by the NYS Senate. For most of Cuomo's tenure, he engineered a Republican-controlled Senate via the IDC, so he could look bipartisan for a presidential run, and also so that people couldn't really outflank him on the left.

Cuomo has been elected for three terms, so at this point everyone on the board would've gone through an appointment or confirmation during his tenure, and Cuomo doesn't really tolerate anyone who isn't an ass-kissing patsy. If the various accounts from all the scandals are to be believed, he's also an insane micromanager.

Edited by bobtehpanda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Micromanager would be an understatement; Cuomo is a Trump-like bully with an overinflated ego who, like Donald, got to where he is in life solely on his father's coattails.  

It speaks volumes that Andy Boy's own party is turning on him, stripping his emergency powers and initiating an investigation that may possibly lead to impeachment.

Edited by R10 2952
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

The case may very well decide the governor doesn't have the authority to do this. He's not a king.

Far from.

Vilification is well justified for this creep... Deification OTOH, man FOH 😂

1 hour ago, R10 2952 said:

Micromanager would be an understatement; Cuomo is a Trump-like bully with an overinflated ego who, like Donald, got to where he is in life solely on his father's coattails.  

It speaks volumes that Andy Boy's own party is turning on him, stripping his emergency powers and initiating an investigation that may possibly lead to impeachment.

Pomposity is a prerequisite for any politician... Point still taken though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Pomposity is a prerequisite for any politician... Point still taken though.

You have to be pushy to get things done and it does not make you popular until the results of your work come in. The reason this is the case is because logic rarely drives the process.
 

7 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Who's getting punished? No one's asking for a punishment.

It's being litigated as a civil rights suit. Last I checked no specific person or entity paid out restitution in Brown v. Board of Ed.

That's precisely the problem. Someone in the government can reduce your rights/services under a false pretext and there is no punishment for their actions in most cases. This is why we have an executive and legislative branch. Bad ideas can't just be imposed in most cases. You will notice how many bad ideas came out of emergency authorities from various mayors and governors.
 

3 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

Cuomo is a Trump-like bully with an overinflated ego who, like Donald, got to where he is in life solely on his father's coattails.  

Fun fact: Most governors have substantially more control over state governments than presidents have over the federal government. If you want to push people around, you become a mayor or governor, not a president.

Another fun fact: People who are bullies don't like to deal with people who they can't bully. Mayor DeBlasio hated dealing with Governor Cuomo and Governor Cuomo hated dealing with Donald Trump. It's really hard to run ANYTHING if people are not giving you the right information. New York was not the only place giving the federal government bad information either. The difference is that Californians got tired of being jerked around and they are going to try and recall their governor directly. I suspect it will come out that they were also fudging data.

Emergency powers bring out the worst in people if they are bad or the best in them if they are good (or are accepting good advice). The fact that we decided to "close" our subway system instead of putting officers on every train overnight is a national shame. This kind of behavior is not lost on corporate America. They are going to leave New York City if the incompetent leadership continues. Almost 100% of Florida's kids are in school in-person and their COVID rate per capita among children is LOWER than California, which has most of their kids learning remotely. It is not only time for Cuomo's emergency authority to end, it is time to audit every single order still in place to make sure that the SCIENCE actually backs those orders. The medical field has a LOT of bullying going on right now and it is also leading to bad outcomes there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JAzumah said:

You have to be pushy to get things done and it does not make you popular until the results of your work come in. The reason this is the case is because logic rarely drives the process.

Funny thing about this is that a politician doesn't have to accomplish much of anything & still gain some level of notoriety for being nothing more than a pompous ass....

Edited by B35 via Church
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, JAzumah said:

That's precisely the problem. Someone in the government can reduce your rights/services under a false pretext and there is no punishment for their actions in most cases. This is why we have an executive and legislative branch. Bad ideas can't just be imposed in most cases. You will notice how many bad ideas came out of emergency authorities from various mayors and governors.

The issue is not really that you can't hold powerful people accountable through the legal system; the Sacklers, after many years, are going through the wringer for pushing Oxy sales in America.

The reason this is being brought as a suit against the MTA is that ultimately, in our legal system the entity doing the direct action is the one you have to seek remedy from. And the burden of proof is a lot easier to accomplish. Chris Christie was never successfully charged with wrongdoing in Bridgegate, because there was too much plausible deniability. Preet Bharara had access to the entire Moreland Commission but there was not enough in it that directly constituted a crime that Cuomo could be charged for. (If he could've pulled it off he would've done so; Giuliani, Spitzer, and Cuomo himself all made their political careers on high-profile prosecution efforts, and people were throwing around Bharara's name for governor at one point.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/20/2021 at 3:08 AM, JAzumah said:

This isn't complicated for the MTA to defend against.

"The governor told us to shut down overnight. The governor will decide when we can open again fully. We are just following instructions. Please dismiss this suit."

 

The Governor controls the MTA's policies and funding. He gets to tell it what to do or not do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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