♪ [THEME MUSIC] ♪
>>> GOOD EVENING.
MY NAME IS BOB LIFF AND THIS
IS THE CUNY FORUM, A MONTHLY
TOWN MEETING THAT BRINGS NEW
YORKERS TOGETHER WITH FACULTY
AND STUDENTS OF THE
EDWARD T. ROGOWSKY INTERNSHIP
PROGRAM IN GOVERNMENT AND
PUBLIC AFFAIRS.
FOR 35 YEARS THE CITY HAS TRIED
TO WRESTLE WITH THE CHALLENGE
POSED BY HOMELESSNESS, FOR 35
YEARS THE NUMBER OF HOMELESS HAS
CONTINUED TO GROW.
THE REASONS INCLUDE A VARIETY OF
SOCIAL DYSFUNCTIONS FROM
SUBSTANCE ABUSE, IN PARTICULAR
THE RECENT EPIDEMIC CRISIS OF
OPIOID ABUSE, TO PEOPLE
COMBATING UNEMPLOYMENT, MENTAL
HEALTH ISSUES, AND TO QUOTE A
GREAT PHILOSOPHY, BECAUSE THE
RENT IS TOO DAMN HIGH.
MAYOR DE BLASIO CAME INTO
OFFICE PROMISING TO TACKLE THE
HOMELESSNESS AND APPOINTED AN
AIDE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELESS SERVICES WHICH HAS SEEN
ITS BUDGET TOP $1 BILLION FOR
THE FIRST TIME BUT THE NUMBERS
CONTINUE TO RISE. NOW AN
AMBITION PLAN TO OPEN 90
SHELTER, END THE USE OF
EXPENSIVE AND TOO OFTEN
SHODDY HOTEL ROOMS AS
TEMPORARY HOUSING AND
SHUTTER 360 APARTMENT BUILDINGS
USED AS CLUSTER SITES WHERE
HOMELESS FAMILIES ARE SENT.
DE BLASIO'S COMMITMENT TO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS THE BEST
LONG-TERM SOLUTION BUT IT'S A
MAMMOTH AND DIFFICULT
UNDERTAKING.
ECONOMIC FORCES FROM
GENTRIFICATION TO
DECENTRALIZATION HAVE TAKEN
THOUSANDS OF AFFORDABLE UNITS
AND ENTRY-LEVEL JOBS OFF THE
MARKET.
THE MAYOR ACKNOWLEDGED HIS PLAN
TO CUT THE HOMELESS POPULATION
THE NEXT FIVE YEARS BY 2,500
FROM ITS CURRENT AROUND 60,000,
THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE PEOPLE
LIVING ON THE STREETS.
WITH ANTICIPATED CUTS IN
ASSISTANCE FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, THE TASK IS
DAUNTING.
THE MAYOR ANNOUNCED A SHIFT IN
HOW THE CITY WILL DECIDE WHERE
SHELTERS GO.
HE SEEKS TO REDEFINE THE FAIR
SHARE FORMULA WHICH WAS SUPPOSED
TO SPREAD SHELTERS AROUND
GEOGRAPHICALLY TO PLACE THE
HOMELESS CLOSE TO THE
NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE THEY COME
FROM OR HAD THEIR MOST RECENT
ADDRESS.
THE PLAN HAS ALREADY MET STRONG
OBJECTION BEFORE ITS FIRST
STEPS.
RESIDENTS OF CROWN HEIGHTS
BLOCKED THE USE OF AN ARMORY AS
A SHELTER.
IN AN ELECTION YEAR NEITHER
LOCAL COUNCIL MEMBERS NOR THE
MAYOR HIMSELF WANTS TO ANGER TOO
MANY VOTERS.
WE'RE JOINED BY FOUR NEW YORKERS
WITH VARYING ROLES IN
ANALYZING AND CONFRONTING THE
HOMELESSNESS CRISIS AND
EFFORTS TO COMBAT IT.
VANESSA GIBSON, CITY
COUNCILMEMBER REPRESENTING BRONX
16th DISTRICT.
THOMAS MAINE, IS A PROFESSOR AT
BARUCH COLLEGE'S MARXE SCHOOL
OF PUBLIC AND INTERNATIONAL
AFFAIRS.
COURTNEY GROSS, A REPORTER FROM
NEW YORK ONE WHO COVERS THE
HOMELESSNESS ISSUE WILL TELL
US WHAT IT ALL MEANS.
AND RAYSA RODRIGUEZ IS
VICE PRESIDENT OF
POLICY AND PLANNING FOR W.I.N.,
WOMEN IN NEED. TOM,
YOU'VE BEEN STUDYING
HOMELESSNESS FOR 35 YEARS.
>> YES.
>> WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO FIX IT,
IT KEEPS GETTING WORSE.
>> YES.
IT'S FRUSTRATING.
THERE'S BEEN NO MAGIC BULLET,
WHICH IS TOO BAD.
I THINK OVERALL NEW YORK CITY
HAS DONE A PRETTY GOOD JOB.
>> SOMEWHERE BETWEEN A B-PLUS
AND A-MINUS, OF MANAGING
HOMELESSNESS.
IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO DO WHAT
DE BLASIO WANTS TO DO, WHICH IS
TURN THE TIDE ON HOMELESSNESS.
>> VANESSA, THE BRONX AND
BROOKLYN HAVE THE LARGEST
NUMBERS OF SHELTERS.
WE SUPPOSEDLY HAVE THIS
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION BASED ON
FAIR SHARE, BUT IT HASN'T REALLY
WORKED THAT WAY.
HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH -- BALANCE
THE NEED WITH THE CUSTOMERS OF
YOUR CONSTITUENTS?
>> IT'S CERTAINLY A GREAT
CHALLENGE.
AS A COUNCILMEMBER, MY FOURTH
YEAR, I LOOK AT MY COMMUNITY AND
WE'VE FACED AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT
OF SATURATION.
A HIGH NUMBER OF SHELTERS FOR
FAMILIES, SINGLE ADULTS, SINGLE
MEN, SINGLE WOMEN, DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE VICTIMS.
WE ARE SEEING AN INCREDIBLE
AMOUNT OF SERVICES FOR MANY OF
THESE FAMILIES.
I THINK FOR MANY NEW YORKERS AND
ELECTED OFFICIALS
UNDERSTANDING THE FACES OF THOSE
GOING TO SHELTERS, PREDOMINANTLY
FAMILIES, SINGLE PARENTS WITH
CHILDREN, SINGLE MEN AND WOMEN.
THEY ARE THE FACES OF OUR CITY.
AND AS THE NUMBER CONTINUES TO
SOAR, IT'S 60,000 FAMILIES --
>> 60,000 PEOPLE.
>> 60,000 PEOPLE, 27,000
CHILDREN.
THOSE NUMBERS ARE REAL.
IN MY SCHOOL DISTRICT I HAVE A
HIGH CONCENTRATION IN DISTRICT 9
OF CHILDREN IN TEMPORARY
HOUSING.
IT'S A REAL TOUGH BALANCE.
THESE ARE FAMILIES THAT NEED
HELP.
THESE ARE FAMILIES THAT MAY HAVE
HAD EMERGENCY SITUATIONS WHERE
THEY'VE BEEN EVICTED, THEY'VE
FALLEN ON HARD TIMES.
THEY SIMPLY NEED LONG-TERM
HOUSING.
I THINK HOW YOU LOOK AT THE
EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF
SHELTERS ACROSS THE CITY OF NEW
YORK IS SOMETHING THAT THE
PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION HAS
STRUGGLED WITH AND WE STILL
STRUGGLE TO THIS DAY.
BY DON'T GET OUR FAIR SHARE.
YOU HAVE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE
SHELTERS COMPARED TO MINE, WHERE
WE HAVE SEVERAL SHELTERS.
WE IN THE BRONX HAVE WELCOMED
AN ABUNDANCE OF SOCIAL
SERVICES, SUPPORTIVE HOUSING,
AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO LOOK AT
FUTURE PROJECTS AND HOW TO MEET
WITH THE DEMAND OF THE CITY THAT
I TRULY BELIEVE AS YOU LOOK AT
OUR FAIR SHARE ANALYSIS, EVERY
NEIGHBORHOOD SHOULD TAKE ON
SHELTERS.
AND LOOK AT ADDITIONAL
OPPORTUNITIES TO TAKE ON A
CITY-WIDE PROBLEM.
BEING HOMELESS IS NOT A MINORITY
ISSUE, IT IS AN ISSUE FACING THE
ENTIRE CITY OF NEW YORK AND THE
ENTIRE CITY OF NEW YORK NEEDS TO
ADDRESS IT.
>> W.I.N., WOMEN IN NEED, HAS A
LONG HISTORY, SOMETHING LIKE
12,000 PEOPLE THAT YOU HELP OUT
ON A NIGHTLY BASIS?
WHAT ARE THE MYTHS ABOUT
HOMELESSNESS?
>> I THINK THERE ARE MANY.
I THINK WE SERVE IN THE CITY
ABOUT 10% OF THE HOMELESS.
AND WE ARE CONSTANTLY TRYING TO
FIGURE OUT WAYS TO RAISE
AWARENESS OF WHO THE HOMELESS
ARE.
AS MENTIONED, THIS IS A
CITY-WIDE ISSUE. WHAT MANY OF
US FAIL TO REALIZE WHO HOMELESS
ARE, OFTEN FAMILIES.
90% OF THEM HEADED BY A SINGLE
MOM.
IT'S VERY MUCH ALSO A CHILDREN'S
ISSUE.
I OFTEN LIKE TO CITE THAT 60% OF
OUR CLIENTS ARE CHILDREN UNDER
THE AGE OF 18.
AND OFTENTIMES WHEN WE TALK
ABOUT HOMELESSNESS, THOSE ARE
THE FORGOTTEN FACES OF
HOMELESSNESS.
THE FACT THAT HOMELESS ARE
ACTUALLY FAMILIES HEADED BY
WOMEN
WITH YOUNG CHILDREN.
>> IT'S AN ELECTION YEAR.
YOU AND I HAVE SPENT A LOT OF
TIME COVERING ELECTIONS.
DEALING WITH ELECTIONS.
IS THIS A TOUGH YEAR TO TRY TO
PUSH THROUGH THE REDEFINITION,
REDEFINING FAIR SHARE MEANS THAT
NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE VANESSA'S
WHERE MORE HOMELESS PEOPLE COME
FROM THAN THE UPPER EAST SIDE
WILL BE GETTING MORE PLACEMENT.
HOW IS THIS PLAYING OUT
POLITICALLY?
>> THE MAYOR IS UP FOR
RE-ELECTION THIS YEAR --
>> AS IS EVERY COUNCILMEMBER.
>> AS IS EVERY COUNCILPERSON.
THE END OF FEBRUARY, MAYOR DE
BLASIO DECIDES TO UNLEASH A PLAN
TO CONSTRUCT OR BUILD 90 NEW
HOMELESS SHELTERS AROUND THE
CITY.
OBVIOUSLY THAT PLAN IS GOING TO
BE COVERING FIVE YEARS.
WELL INTO A POTENTIAL SECOND
TERM FOR THE MAYOR.
BUT ANY POLITICAL OBSERVER WOULD
SAY, THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY THE
BEST, MOST OPPORTUNE TIME TO
UNVEIL THAT TYPE OF PLAN.
PERHAPS THIS SHOWS HOW CONFIDENT
THE MAYOR IS IN HIS PARTICULAR
RE-ELECTION.
WE OBVIOUSLY KNOW HE DOES NOT
SEE AS OF THIS POINT ANY REAL
FORMIDABLE OPPONENTS.
HIM COMING OUT WITH THIS PLAN
SAYING HE WANTS TO RESTRUCTURE
THE ENTIRE SHELTER SYSTEM IS A
SIGN OF THAT CONFIDENCE.
AS FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS, YOU'RE
GOING TO SEE THEM MOST LIKELY
FIGHT BACK.
I THINK WE'RE STARTING TO SEE
THAT.
OBVIOUSLY THE MAYOR HAS HIS
DEFINITION OF FAIR SHARE.
IN HIS PLAN HIS DEFINITION OF
FAIR SHARE IS EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD
NEEDS TO TAKE CARE OF THE
HOMELESS INDIVIDUAL OR FAMILIES
THAT ARE COMING FROM THAT
NEIGHBORHOOD.
FOR INSTANCE, THAT MEANS IN
GREENWICH VILLAGE, WE'RE GOING
TO HAVE ABOUT A COUPLE DOZEN
PEOPLE.
THAT MEANS THAT WE NEED TO HAVE
A SHELTER IN GREENWICH VILLAGE
FOR A COUPLE DOZEN PEOPLE.
IN THE COUNCILWOMAN'S DISTRICT
THAT MEANS YOU NEED CAPACITY FOR
POTENTIALLY THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE.
MAYOR DE BLASIO'S FAIR SHARE,
YOU WILL HAVE MORE SHELTERS IN
MORE IMPOVERISHED AREAS, MORE
AFFLUENT AREAS WILL NOT HAVE
SHELTERS.
THE COUNCIL IS PROPOSING
LEGISLATION TO MAKE IT MORE
EQUITABLE, TO MAKE SURE THAT --
POTENTIALLY IN AN ELECTION YEAR
YOU MAY SEE THIS CLASH BETWEEN
THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL.
>> AS A HISTORIAL PHENOMENON,
WHAT IS THE DEBATE?
>> WELL, TALKING ABOUT THE ISSUE
OF PLACING 90 NEW SHELTERS,
DINKINS, DE BLASIO'S MENTOR,
TRIED TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT
DURING HIS SINGLE TERM.
THERE WAS A PLAN TO --
>> HE CAME IN WELL AFTER THE NEW
CITY CHARTER WAS ADOPTED WHICH
INCLUDES THE FAIR SHARE.
>> RIGHT.
AND DINKINS' PLAN WAS, WE'RE
GOING TO BUILD MORE SHELTERS.
AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE RUN BY
NOT FOR PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.
AND HOW ARE WE GOING TO CONVINCE
THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND
COMMUNITIES TO ACCEPT THEM?
ANSWER, THE FAIR SHARE FORMULA
IS GOING TO BE SO FAIR, IT'S
GOING TO BE WORKED OUT BY
COMPUTERS, WHICH WAS UNUSUAL
BACK THEN.
THERE'S GOING TO BE CONSTANT
COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION
WITH THE COMMUNITIES.
AND EVERYBODY AT THE END OF THE
DAY WILL SAY, GEE, THE PROCESS
WAS SO TRANSPARENT AND SO JUST,
WE JUST CAN'T OBJECT TO IT.
DIDN'T HAPPEN.
WALKED RIGHT INTO A BUZZ SAW.
I INTERVIEWED PEOPLE WHO WERE
INVOLVED IN THOSE COMMUNITY
NEGOTIATIONS.
NANCY WAXSTEIN, FOR EXAMPLE,
WHO WAS DINKINS' COORDINATOR
ON HOMELESS POLICY. AND SHE
TOLD ME, I'D COME OUT OF THESE
MEETINGS ON STATEN ISLAND AND
OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS AND
YOU COULD SEE THE MARKS ON
MY BACK FROM THE BEATING I HAD
TAKEN.
SO SEEING DE BLASIO'S PLAN TURN
THE TIDE ON HOMELESSNESS, YOU
KNOW, IT SEEMS TO ME -- AGAIN,
HE'S COUNTING ON LOTS OF
CONSULTATION, LOTS OF
TRANSPARENCY AND SO FORTH.
SO THAT DIDN'T WORK BEFORE.
THEN ALSO, HE DOESN'T EVEN HAVE
GOING FOR HIM THE ARGUMENT THAT,
OH, IT'S GOING TO BE SPREAD OUT
ALL OVER THE CITY.
SO -- GEE.
>> WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THIS?
YOU HAVE SHELTERS IN VARIOUS --
HOMELESS RESIDENTIAL CENTERS --
>> TEN FAMILY SHELTERS ACROSS
THE CITY.
THE PROBLEM IS VERY COMPLEX.
WE KNOW THAT, FOR INSTANCE, WHAT
FOLKS OFTEN DON'T REALIZE IS 51%
OF FOLKS COMING INTO SHELTER ARE
EMPLOYED.
51% OF OUR MOMS COMING INTO
SHELTER ARE WORKING.
SOMETIMES ONE, TWO JOBS,
SOMETIMES EVEN THREE JOBS.
AND ARE UNABLE TO MAKE ENDS
MEET.
THE NUMBER ONE DRIVER OF FOLKS
COMING INTO SHELTER IS EVICTION.
THERE ARE ALSO A NUMBER OF OTHER
REASONS.
TB IS ON THE RISE.
THERE'S A HUGE AMOUNT OF
CONTRIBUTING FACTORS THAT REALLY
DRIVES THIS ISSUE.
FIRST THERE'S A HUGE
AFFORDABILITY ISSUE THAT WE
CAN'T -- IT'S THE ELEPHANT IN
THE ROOM.
WE KNOW THAT REAL WAGES HAVE
BEEN DECLINING WHILE RENTS ARE
CLIMBING UP.
AND THAT IS HAVING A REAL STRAIN
ON FOLKS' ABILITY TO MAKE ENDS
MEET.
>> VANESSA, ONE OF YOUR
COLLEAGUES HAD A PIECE IN "CITY
AND STATE" TALKING ABOUT THAT
RENT, THE RENT IS TOO DAMN HIGH,
THAT THAT IS THE MAJOR
CONTRIBUTOR.
AND THAT IN THE MAYOR'S
MANDATORY INCLUSIONARY HOUSING
IN WHICH YOU HAVE TO HAVE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN
DEVELOPMENTS, YET THE LEVELS AT
WHICH THOSE RENTS ARE SET ARE
TOO HIGH FOR MANY OF THE PEOPLE
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TRYING TO
SERVE.
>> I THINK THAT'S BECAUSE
AFFORDABILITY DOESN'T APPLY TO
EVERYONE.
IT'S A LOOSELY USED WORD THAT
SIMPLY IS NOT REACHABLE FOR MANY
NEW YORKERS.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CONTENTIOUS
MIH DEBATE --
>> MIH IS.
>> MANDATORY INCLUSIONARY
HOUSING AND ZONING AND QUALITY.
YOU LOOK AT THE MANDATORY PLAN.
WE NEEDED THAT BECAUSE NEW YORK
CITY HAD NO INCLUSIONARY PLAN AT
ALL.
TO MANDATE SOME LEVEL OF
AFFORDABILITY WITH NEW
DEVELOPMENT.
EVEN WITH THAT CITY-WIDE PLAN
YOU HAVE 14 NEIGHBORHOODS THAT
ARE LOOKING AT NEIGHBORHOOD
REZONINGS. I HAVE ONE CALLED
JEROME IN THE BRONX.
LOOKING AT TWO SQUARE
MILES OF REZONING,
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL, AND
THE DEVELOPMENT FOR EXPECTED
GROWTH IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK
AND OBVIOUSLY IN THE BRONX.
I THINK MANY FAMILIES ARE LIVING
AT OR BELOW THE FEDERAL POVERTY
LINE.
TALKING ABOUT A FAMILY OF FOUR
MAKING LESS THAN $40,000 A YEAR.
IF YOU LOOKED AT SOME OF THE
AMIs --
>> AREA MEDIAN INCOME, WHICH IS
THE BASIS UPON WHICH RENTS ARE
SET --
>> RIGHT, AND THE AMIs ARE NOT
REACHABLE.
THAT'S WHY YOU SEE SO MANY
FAMILIES LIVING IN SHELTERS AND
ARE WORKING AND ARE SIMPLY
TRYING TO FIND LONG-TERM
HOUSING.
I THINK ONE OF THE MOST GREATEST
CHALLENGES WE HAVE, AND I
LEARNED MYSELF TALKING TO
COMMISSIONER BANKS, WE'RE NOT
MOVING FAMILIES OUT OF SHELTERS
QUICK ENOUGH.
THAT'S THE REASON WHY THERE'S
NEED TO BUILD MORE.
ON AVERAGE, AND SHE CAN TELL
YOU, FAMILIES ARE LIVING IN
SHELTERS BETWEEN SIX AND EIGHT
MONTHS OR LONGER.
>> LONGER.
>> SOME OF THESE PROGRAMS LIKE
THE VOUCHERS HAVE ELIGIBILITY
REQUIREMENTS.
AS SOON AS YOU ARE INELIGIBLE,
YOU LOSE YOUR VOUCHER.
SO YOU HAVE FAMILIES THAT ARE
FULL-TIME WORKERS BUT HAVE TO
MINIMIZE THEIR HOURS TO BE
PART-TIME JUST SO THEY CAN
MAINTAIN THAT ELIGIBILITY
STATUS.
THAT'S NOT THE MESSAGE WE WANT
TO SEND.
SO I'VE ASKED THE COMMISSIONER
TO LOOK AT THESE VOUCHERS AND
CITY FEPS AND ALL THE OTHER
SUBSIDY PROGRAMS WHICH ARE
ILLEGAL TO DENY A FAMILY BY
VIRTUE OF THEIR SOURCE OF
INCOME.
AND WE'RE GOING AFTER
LANDLORDS THAT ARE NOT TAKING
THESE SUBSIDY PROGRAMS.
I HEAR FROM FAMILIES ALL THE
TIME, I'M IN A SHELTER, I HAVE A
VOUCHER, I CANNOT FIND AN
APARTMENT, HOW CAN YOU HELP?
THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS WE HAVE
TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER.
IT'S ALSO AN AFFORDABILITY ISSUE
BUT IT'S ABOUT ACCESS.
HOW MUCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING ARE
WE REALLY BUILDING, AND WHO ARE
WE BUILDING IT FOR?
>> AND YOU TALKED ABOUT, MY
WORDS, IT MAY BE POLITICALLY
NUTS FOR CONFRONTING THIS ISSUE
DURING AN ELECTION YEAR.
IT'S ALSO KIND OF BRAVE FOR
DOING IT.
I MEAN, THERE'S A LEVEL OF
COMMITMENT, BILL DE BLASIO,
PROGRESSIVE, BELIEVES THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT THE CITY HAS TO
DO AND THE CITY OUGHT TO DO,
EVEN IN THE FACE OF NO FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT DOING NOTHING FOR US.
>> SURE, BECAUSE NUMBER ONE THE
CITY IS OBLIGATED BY LAW TO DO
IT. THE CALLAHAN DECISION SAYS
EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO IS IN
NEED OF SHELTER GETS SHELTER.
THEY DON'T REALLY HAVE A CHOICE.
ANYONE THAT LOOKS AT THE MAYOR'S
PLAN CAN SAY IT'S BRAVE FOR
THE MAYOR TO SAY HE'S GOING TO
CONSTRUCT 90 NEW HOMELESS
SHELTERS IN THIS CITY OVER THE
NEXT FIVE YEARS. OTHER
PEOPLE, CRITICS, PROGRESSIVES,
WILL TELL YOU HE ONLY WANTS
TO REDUCE THE HOMELESS
POPULATION BY 2,500 PEOPLE.
>> OUT OF 60,000.
>> WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
THAT MEANS THE CITY IS GOING TO
BE TREADING WATER.
THIS IS AN UNMANAGEABLE PROBLEM
AS OF THIS POINT AND THERE IS NO
CLEAR SOLUTION.
PART OF THAT HAS TO DO WITH WHAT
THE COUNCILWOMAN WAS SAYING,
LANDLORDS NOT ACCEPTING
VOUCHERS, THE AFFORDABILITY
QUESTION.
MY VOUCHER FOR A FAMILY OF, SAY,
THREE, COVERS ABOUT $1,200.
WHERE AM I GOING TO FIND A
TWO-BEDROOM APARTMENT IN THE
CITY FOR $1,200?
NO FAMILY CAN FIND THAT.
>> HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THIS?
>> WE DEAL WITH THIS DAY IN AND
DAY OUT WITH COMMITTED STAFF.
THAT REALLY LOOK AT THIS ISSUE
FROM A HUMAN PERSPECTIVE.
ONE THING WE ALSO NEED TO
MENTION IS THIS HAS A REAL
IMPACT.
THIS CRISIS HAS A REAL IMPACT ON
FAMILIES AND OUR KIDS.
SPEAKING ABOUT THE LENGTH OF
STAY THAT MANY FAMILIES ARE
HAVING IN SHELTER, CHIRP ARE
GROWING UP 12, 14 MONTHS IN
SHELTER.
THAT'S NOT A SHORT AMOUNT OF
TIME FOR A CHILD UNDER 5, WHICH
40% OF THE KIDS WE SERVE ARE
UNDER AGE 5.
SO WE DEAL WITH IT BY REALLY
HAVING A ROBUST SYSTEM TO
ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF FAMILIES --
>> ARE YOU CONFIDENT YOU'RE
GOING TO BE ABLE TO RETAIN THOSE
SERVICES?
THE BUDGET PRIORITIES IN
WASHINGTON BEING WHAT THEY ARE?
HOW MUCH DO YOU DEPEND ON
FEDERAL FUND SFTS.
>> THAT'S A WHOLE OTHER STORY
WHICH WE'RE WATCHING VERY
CLOSELY.
WE'RE FORTUNATE TO BE ABLE TO
WORK WITH PRIVATE FUNDERS AND
HAVE PRIVATE-PUBLIC
PARTNERSHIPS.
BUT I THINK IT TAKES A LOT OF
COLLABORATIVE WORK. WE
WORK CLOSELY WITH CITY COUNCIL
AS WELL TO REALLY PROVIDE A WIDE
RANGE OF SERVICES THAT WE KNOW
FAMILIES NEED.
>> YOU SAY WIDE, IS IT SUBSTANCE
SERVICES? I MEAN, WHAT ARE THE-
>> YOU NAME IT. THE KEY
IS THAT IT'S IS INDIVIDUALIZED.
EVERY FAMILY IS UNIQUE.
EVERY FAMILY COMING TO SHELTER
HAS A UNIQUE SET OF NEEDS.
IT'S ABOUT ASSESSING WHAT THOSE
NEEDS ARE AND REALLY TAILORING
SERVICES TO THOSE NEEDS.
SO SOME FAMILIES, IT'S LITERALLY
SHELTER, A ROOF OVER THEIR HEAD.
FOR OTHER FAMILIES, THERE ARE
REAL SIGNIFICANT ISSUES WITH
TRAUMA AND VIOLENCE, EXPERIENCE
WITH VIOLENCE.
COUNSELING IS IMPORTANT.
INCOME-BUILDING SERVICES, AS I
MENTIONED MANY MOMS ARE ALREADY
WORKING.
WE DON'T LIKE TO THINK OF IT AT
JOB TRAINING, BUT RATHER, HOW DO
WE CONNECT MOMS WITH MORE
EDUCATION SO THEY CAN HAVE
HIGHER-PAYING JOBS, BETTER
BENEFITS.
AND ALSO AT THE END OF THE DAY
PROVIDING THE RANGE OF SERVICES
THAT CHILDREN NEED TO
BUILD RESILENCY.
>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE
IN SHELTERS.
WE ALSO HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN
HOTELS.
PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE CLUSTER
HOUSING.
PUT IN APARTMENTS.
THERE ARE VARIOUS KINDS OF
PROPOSALS TO MOVE HOMELESS
PEOPLE UP TO THE TOP OF THE LIST
FOR NEW YORK CITY HOUSING
AUTHORITY APARTMENTS.
WHERE YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO HAVE
BEEN WAITING TWO YEARS IN ORDER
TO GET AN APARTMENT.
ANYONE CAN JUMP IN. HOW DO
YOU -- ARE WE SQUEEZING A
BOTTLE AND SOMETHING COMES
OUT HERE, SOMETHING COMES OUT
THERE?
OR ARE WE JUST TREADING WATER?
>> INITIALLY THE CITY
WAS GOING TO BE GETTING OUT OF
CLUSTERS SOONER THAN WHAT THE
MAYOR COMMITTED IN FEBRUARY.
INITIALLY THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO
BE OUT OF THEM BY NEXT YEAR.
THEN THEY REALIZE THEED WHILE
THE RATE OF HOMELESSNESS IS
GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE GOING UP
AT THE RATE IT IS NOW, QUICKLY
THAT MEANS I'M NOT GOING TO BE
ABLE TO GET ALL THE FAMILIES OUT
OF HOTELS AND OUT OF CLUSTERS
BEFORE I CAN BUILD ENOUGH
CAPACITY TO PUT THEM IN ACTUAL
SHELTERS LIKE THE ONE WOMEN IN
NEED OPERATE WHERE THEY'RE ABLE
TO GET SOCIAL SERVICES AND JOB
TRAINING AND HOPEFULLY END UP
GETTING OUT OF HOUSING.
SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE
CLUSTERS AROUND FOR A NUMBER OF
YEARS.
I DON'T BELIEVE WE'RE GOING TO
BE GETTING OUT OF HOTELS UNTIL
2023.
MUCH OF THE MAYOR'S POLICY UP
UNTIL FEBRUARY HAS REALLY BEEN
REACTIONARY.
THEY CONTINUE TO BE IN CLUSTERS
AFTER THE GIULIANI
ADMINISTRATION STARTED USING IT
BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY THEY WERE
THERE, THEY SAID THEY WERE NO
LONGER GOING TO BE IN HOTELS,
AND THEN THEY CONTINUED TO PUT
FAMILIES IN HOTELS BECAUSE THE
CAPACITY CONTINUED TO GROW AND
GROW AND GROW.
THERE'S A VACANCY RATE IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELESS SERVICES
RIGHT NOW ABOUT I THINK LESS
THAN 1%.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
THERE'S ABOUT 30 TO 40 VACANT
PLACES TO PUT PEOPLE EVERY
SINGLE NIGHT.
UNTIL YOU GROW THE CAPACITY AND
ACTUALLY GET PEOPLE IN STABLE
SHELTER, THAT'S WHEN YOU CAN GET
THEM THE SERVICES THEY NEED, TO
HOPEFULLY END UP GETTING OUT OF
SHELTER INTO PERMANENT HOUSING.
BUT UNTIL THE CAPACITY
INCREASES, I DON'T THINK THE
CITY IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO
REALLY MINIMIZE THE POPULATION.
>> THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
WE HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH
CLUSTER HOUSING FOR MANY YEARS.
AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE
MAJORITY, BETWEEN 3,000 AND
3,300 CLUSTER UNITS IN THIS
CITY, A MAJORITY ARE IN THE
BRONX AND BROOKLYN.
WE HAVE SOME IN QUEENS AND
MANHATTAN.
IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
I HAVE BEEN ABSOLUTELY
AGGRESSIVE WITH THIS
ADMINISTRATION ON PHASING
CLUSTER SITES OUT.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FAMILIES
THAT ARE LIVING IN TRADITIONAL
AFFORDABLE UNITS IN A BUILDING
AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT UNITS OF
CLUSTER HOUSING.
SO THE PROBLEM IS THESE FAMILIES
GET ABSOLUTELY NO SERVICES IN
TERMS OF MENTAL HEALTH, JOB
TRAINING, EDUCATION, THEY GET
NOTHING.
IT IS UNACCEPTABLE.
WE HAVE BEEN MEETING WITH
COMMISSIONER BANKS AND THEY HAVE
GIVEN US A THREE-YEAR PLAN HOW
THEY'RE GOING TO PHASE THEM OUT.
WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT UNIT, CAN
THAT UNIT TURN BACK INTO AN
AFFORDABLE UNIT?
IF IT'S IN A BUILDING THAT
DOESN'T HAVE EXCESSIVE
VIOLATIONS, CAN WE DEAL WITH
THOSE?
AND CAN WE TRANSITION THESE
FAMILIES INTO LONG-TERM HOUSING?
WE SHOULD NOT MOVE CLUSTER
FAMILIES INTO ANOTHER SHELTER,
IT'S UNACCEPTABLE.
SOME OF THE NEW DEVELOPMENTS
THAT I'VE SEEN IN MY DISTRICT
HAVE BEEN MIXED USE.
SO I HAVE A NEW UNIT OF 80 UNITS
THAT WE HAVE SET ASIDE FOR
VETERANS BECAUSE WE DON'T DO
ENOUGH FOR THEM.
WE HAVE AFFORDABLE UNITS OF
HOUSING.
AND WE ALSO HAVE SOME SHELTER
FAMILIES.
AND I HAVE TO FIGHT WITH THEM TO
GET MORE AFFORDABLE UNITS AND
LESS SHELTER FAMILIES.
BECAUSE I SAID, THIS HAS TO BE A
UNIT THAT IS LOOKED AT AS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, NOT ANOTHER
SHELTER.
>> YOU'RE VERY EMOTIONAL BECAUSE
IT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE.
>> THERE'S A PERCEPTION THAT
THERE'S A PERCEPTION THAT YOU'RE
DEALING WITH HOMELESS FAMILIES,
THAT THERE ARE A VARIETY OF
PATHOLOGIES INVOLVED THAT
THEY'RE UNWELCOME NEIGHBORS.
THAT KIND OF --
>> THAT'S BEEN THE CASE.
I WAS IN A SHELTER, A NEW
SHELTER OPENING IN CROWN HEIGHTS
TODAY.
IT WAS THE SHELTER THE MAYOR
TALKED ABOUT AT THE END OF
FEBRUARY, A FAMILY SHELTER, 132
FAMILIES. ROGERS AVENUE IN CROWN
HEIGHTS. GOT A TOUR OF THAT.
REPUTABLE NONPROFIT.
AND YOU WALK INTO ONE OF THE
UNITS, IT HAS NEW APPLIANCES.
IT HAS A STOVE, A FRIDGE,
BEDROOMS.
ONE BEDROOM IS ABOUT 500 SQUARE
FEET.
SO OBVIOUSLY IT'S A TINY
PLACE FOR A THREE-PERSON FAMILY.
BUT IT GIVES YOU SERVICES AND A
ROOF OVER THEIR HEAD.
THAT DAY I VISITED A CLUSTER
SITE.
THAT SITE OBVIOUSLY DID NOT
PROVIDE THE SERVICES.
AND ARE TYPICALLY KNOWN TO HAVE
POOR CONDITIONS.
THE CITY IS GOING TO SHUT DOWN
THE CLUSTERS AND BUILD THIS NEW
SHELTER IN CROWN HEIGHTS.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU'RE
STANDING OUTSIDE THAT SHELTER IN
CROWN HEIGHTS?
EVERY RESIDENT I PASSED JUST
SHOOTING VIDEO OF
THE BUILDING TODAY SAYS,
HOMELESS PEOPLE CANNOT COME TO
MY NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY CANNOT
COME TO MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS IS FAMILIES, WOMEN,
CHILDREN.
IT DOESN'T MATTER, THE PROPERTY
VALUE WILL GO DOWN, CRIME WILL
GO UP.
TO BE HONEST, NONE OF THOSE HAVE
PROVEN TO BE TRUE.
THE FACT IS, PEOPLE DO NOT WANT
MORE HOMELESS SHELTERS IN THEIR
NEIGHBORHOODS.
>> WOULD YOU ALLOW ANOTHER
SHELTER?
>> NO I WANT LONG-TERM HOUSING.
I LIKE THE IDEA OF HAVING MIXED
USE BUILDINGS.
>> MEANING MIXED INCOME OR MIXED
USE?
>> MIXED USE OF THE BUILDING.
SO VETERANS, SOME HOMELESS
FAMILIES, BECAUSE THERE ARE
SOCIAL SERVICES ON-SITE.
IT'S NOT A CLUSTER.
THEN PERMANENT HOUSING.
YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH PROJECTS
LIKE THAT IN DISTRICTS LIKE MINE
BECAUSE TECHNICALLY IT'S NOT A
FULL-FLEDGED SHELTER.
THE IDEA AND THE CONCEPT -- I
HATE TO HEAR THOSE CONVERSATIONS
ABOUT "THOSE PEOPLE."
THOSE PEOPLE ARE NEW YORKERS.
THEY'RE OUR CHILDREN AND
THEY'RE OUR FAMILIES.
HOW DARE YOU MAKE THOSE TYPES OF
REMARKS. WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO
HAVE FALLEN ON HARD TIMES THAT
ONLY NEED A LEVEL OF SUPPORT.
CONTRARY TO WHAT PEOPLE ARE
SAYING, MANY NEW YORKERS ARE ONE
PAYCHECK AWAY FROM EVICTION.
IF THEIR INCOME CHANGES THEY
COULD EASILY AN VICTIM AND FALL
INTO A SHELTER.
I WANT EVERYONE TO HAVE SYMPATHY
AND SENSITIVITY AROUND THESE
CONVERSATIONS.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HUMAN
BEINGS.
THEY NEED SUPPORT AND NEED HELP
AND NEED LONG-TERM HOUSING JUST
LIKE EVERYONE ELSE IN THIS CITY.
>> ALSO, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
40,000-SOMETHING PEOPLE,
13,000-SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE
INDIVIDUALS.
MOSTLY MEN BUT NOT ALL MEN.
>> YES.
>> THOSE ARE DIFFERENT -- THOSE
PRESENT DIFFERENT CHALLENGES.
>> ONE THING THAT COULD BE SAID,
WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE
HOMELESS, THAT'S A MISNOMER.
IT'S MANY DIFFERENT POPULATIONS.
TO LUMP THEM ALL INTO ONE
CATEGORY --
>> THE CITY IS TRYING TO DEAL
WITH DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF
PEOPLE IN DIFFERENT WAYS.
>> THAT'S AN ADVANTAGE THAT I'VE
SEEN OVER THE YEARS.
WE'RE MORE PICKING OUR TARGETS.
I THINK THE CITY -- I DON'T
THINK THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN
EXPLOSION OF HOMELESS PEOPLE ON
THE STREET.
MAYOR DE BLASIO GOT HIT WITH
THAT VERY HARD BY THE TABLOIDS
AT ONE POINT EARLY IN HIS
ADMINISTRATION.
I DON'T SEE ANY EVIDENCE THAT
THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON THE
STREET ACTUALLY WENT UP.
AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, I THINK
ONE OF THE SUCCESSES OF CITY
HOMELESS POLICY HAS BEEN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF AN EFFECTIVE
OUTREACH STRATEGY.
IT USED TO BE THE IDEA WAS, OH,
IF YOU'RE ON THE STREET AND
YOU'RE DISABLED, MENTALLY ILL,
SUBSTANCE ABUSE, WHATEVER, WHAT
WE DO IS WE GO TO YOU AND SAY,
GOSH, IF YOU'LL CLEAN UP YOUR
ACT, WE'LL GIVE YOU PERMANENT
HOUSING.
AND THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO
INCENTIVIZE YOU TO GET YOUR ACT
TOGETHER.
AND IN FACT A LOT PEOPLE SAID,
NO.
SO THERE WAS A REVOLUTION IN THE
APPROACH.
WE NOW HAVE A HOUSING-FIRST
APPROACH.
OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE YOU
INTO HOUSING RIGHT AWAY --
>> GET YOU OFF THE STREET.
>> RIGHT.
BUT SEE, THIS WAS IT.
THAT WAS EXACTLY IT.
IT DOESN'T WORK IF YOU SAY, WE
WILL MOVE YOU TO A SHELTER RIGHT
AWAY.
YOU HAVE TO SAY, WE WILL MOVE
YOU TO SOMETHING LIKE PERMANENT
HOUSING.
THEN THAT TURNED OUT TO BE VERY
TRICKY BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IF
SOMEBODY YOU'VE BEEN APPROACHING
FOR MONTHS ABOUT THIS, WHO HAS
BEEN SAYING, NO, NO, NO, I DON'T
WANT TO DO IT, WHAT HAPPENS IF
ONE DAY HE SAYS OR HE SAYS, YES,
TAKE ME?
WELL, NOW YOU'RE ON THE SPOT.
SO THE BUREAUCRACY HAD TO LEARN
TO ENABLE THE OUTREACH WORKERS
TO MAKE A COMMITMENT WITHOUT
CONTACTING THE FRONT OFFICE
THAT, YEAH, WE WILL MOVE YOU
INTO SOMETHING LIKE PERMANENT
HOUSING.
AND THEY HAD TO BE A FIRST STEP
CALLED STABILIZATION UNITS, I
BELIEVE, WHERE YOU GOT YOUR I.D.
TOGETHER, SO FORTH.
AND SO THAT WORKED OUT QUITE
EFFECTIVELY.
I REMEMBER WHEN I FIRST WAS
COVERING THIS BEAT BACK IN THE
EARLY '60s.
THE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF HOMELESS
PEOPLE ON THE STREETS WAS 36,000
PEOPLE ON THE STREET.
NOW THAT WAS AN EXAGGERATION,
BUT STILL, YOU HAD MORE BACK
THEN.
IN THE EARLY '80s THAN YOU DO
NOW.
AND YOU CERTAINLY -- THE PEOPLE
OUT THERE ARE BEING WATCHED AND
OBSERVED AND ALL THE REST OF IT.
SO I THINK THE CITY HAS DONE A
REASONABLY GOOD JOB WITH THE
HOMELESS PEOPLE ON THE STREET.
YOU KNOW, I THINK THE BECAUSE I
DON'T ADMINISTRATION SEEMS TO
HAVE BEEN KIND OF POLITICALLY
INEPT OR INCAUTIOUS.
I THINK THEY CAME IN AND THE
EXPECTATIONS WERE VERY HIGH
BECAUSE DE BLASIO WAS A
PROGRESSIVE, HE HAD MADE
INEQUALITY THE CENTERPIECE OF
HIS CAMPAIGN.
I THINK PEOPLE EXPECTED A NIGHT
AND DAY CHANGE.
THE TABLOIDS WANTED TO CLAIM
THAT HE HAD CLAIMED A THERE
WOULD BE A NIGHT AND DAY CHANGE,
AND WHEN THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN DE
BLASIO ENDED UP BEHIND THE
EIGHT-BALL.
I ALSO THINK THAT THE BIG POLICY
INITIATIVE IT SEEMS TO ME IN THE
DE BLASIO ADMINISTRATION, THE
HOMELESS, WAS REINTRODUCING RENT
SUBSIDIES FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES,
WHICH HAD COME TO AN END UNDER
BLOOMBERG.
A LOT OF PEOPLE, INCLUDING ME,
SAID OH, GOOD, THE SUBSIDIES,
MOVE PEOPLE OUT OF THE SHELTERS
FASTER, RIGHT, DRIVE THE SEN
DOES DOWN, THEN DE BLASIO WILL
BE ABLE TO DECLARE VICTORY.
DIDN'T HAPPEN.
SO WHY THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN IS --
I THINK MAYBE PART OF THE REASON
FOR THAT IS THAT ONE OF THE
SUBSIDIES WERE REINTRODUCED SO
YOU HAD THE POTENTIAL FOR MOVING
MORE PEOPLE OUT.
I THINK FOR A PERIOD OF TIME
THERE WAS A RELAXATION IN THE
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR GETTING
INTO THE SHELTER.
THAT WAS PROBABLY NOT A GOOD
MOVE.
THE SHELTER, THE SUBSIDIES ONLY
WORK IF ALL THINGS REMAIN EQUAL,
RIGHT?
SO I THINK DE BLASIO, BECAUSE OF
SOME POOR MANEUVERS, ENDED UP
LOOKING MAYBE WORSE THAN IN FACT
HE IS.
>> HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THE --
DO YOU HAVE INDIVIDUAL SHELTERS?
IN YOUR DISTRICT?
>> STANDALONE?
>> NO, SHELTERS FOR INDIVIDUALS.
>> OH, ABSOLUTELY.
SINGLE WOMEN WITH PSYCHIATRIC
NEEDS IN MY DISTRICT.
>> DO THOSE POSE DIFFERENT
CHALLENGES?
>> YES, THEY DO.
>> DO THEY HAVE A HEIGHTENED
SENSE OF COMMUNITY OPPOSITION?
>> THEY DO.
IF YOU TALK ABOUT SINGLE MEN,
USUALLY THE COMMUNITY ERUPTS.
BUT I LIKE THE IDEA OF HAVING
SINGLE MEN AND ALL SORTS OF
CONNOTATIONS AND STEREOTYPES
ABOUT MEN COMING HOME FROM
PRISON, SEXUAL PREDATORS, ET
CETERA.
PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE OF WOMEN AND
MOTHERS IN THE COMMUNITY.
I THINK SINGLE ADULT WOMEN ARE
MUCH EASIER AND I HAVE A SHELTER
NOW THAT WAS 200 BEDS FOR SINGLE
MEN AND WE WERE ABLE TO CLOSE
IT, BUT INSTEAD WE HAD 200 WOMEN
THAT ARE NOW THERE.
AND THE CHALLENGES ARE EQUALLY
AS GREAT BUT DIFFERENT.
THESE ARE WOMEN WITH SEVERE
MENTAL ILLNESSES, PSYCHIATRIC
NEEDS.
BUT IT'S EASIER TO GET THROUGH A
COMMUNITY LIKE MINE BECAUSE THE
ASSUMPTION IS THAT WOMEN ARE
LESS VIOLENT AND LESS OF A
THREAT.
THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE.
I DO LOOK AT THE -- TRYING TO
KEEP FAMILIES IN THEIR HOMES.
A LOT OF THIS WORK IN THE
HOMELESSNESS CONVERSATION IS
ABOUT PRESERVATION.
IT'S ABOUT KEEPING PROGRAMS LIKE
J-51 AND TAX ABATEMENT WHERE
RENTS ARE STABILIZED AND THEY
DON'T GO UP.
AS MUCH AS A MARKET VALUE
APARTMENT.
THAT'S CRITICAL TO THIS
CONVERSATION.
BECAUSE WE HAVE TO WORK WITH
LANDLORDS AND MAKE SURE THE OLD
PROGRAM RENT STABILIZATION, WE
HAVE TO MAKE SURE THOSE RENTS
ARE PROTECTED.
THAT'S WHY WE FIGHT SO HARD WHEN
THE BOARD VOTES ON THE LEASES.
THAT'S SOMETHING THIS COUNCIL'S
BEEN VERY FIRM ON IN MAKING SURE
WHEN TENANTS, IF THEY DO HAVE TO
GO TO COURT FOR AN EVICTION
PROCEEDING, THEY HAVE A LAWYER.
MANY OF THEM GO TO COURT AND
SIGN DOCUMENTS THEY CANNOT
COMPLY WITH.
>> AND DON'T UNDERSTAND.
>> AND DON'T UNDERSTAND, SO
THAT'S A HUGE PART OF THIS.
PRESERVATION AND KEEPING THEM IN
THEIR HOMES, PREVENTING
EVICTIONS.
WE'VE SEEN WITH THE $62 MILLION
OF INVESTMENTS INTO SERVICES,
CITY-WIDE EVICTIONS HAVE
DECREASED BY 24%.
THAT IS PROGRESS BUT WE HAVE A
LONG WAY TO GO.
I THINK THESE ARE ALL PIECES
THAT HAVE TO SIMPLY WORK
TOGETHER.
>> IT'S TOUGH TO KIND OF
CATEGORIZE WHAT THE LARGEST
CAUSES ARE.
IF YOU HAD TO COMPARE BETWEEN
WHAT I CALL SOCIAL DYSFUNCTION
AND KIND OF A STRAIGHT, RENT IS
TOO DAMN HIGH, WHAT'S THE PRIME
DRIVER?
>> I WOULD SAY A COMBINATION.
THE LARGEST PROPORTION OF CAUSES
OR REASONS --
>> DO YOU HAVE ALL FAMILY
SHELTERS?
>> WE HAVE TEN FAMILY SHELTERS.
ONE SHELTER FOR SINGLE WOMEN,
HEALTH DIAGNOSIS.
MOST OF MY SHELTERS ARE FAMILY
SHELTERS.
>> SETTING THAT ASIDE, WE HAVE
WOMEN WITH MENTAL CHALLENGES, IS
IT --
>> THE MAIN DRIVER HAS BEEN
EVICTION, BY AND LARGE.
LIKE I MENTIONED, MANY FAMILIES
ARE UNABLE TO MAKE ENDS MEET
EVEN IF THEY ARE WORKING.
EVICTIONS ARE A DRIVING FORCE.
WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT OTHER
THINGS.
DV HAS BEEN GOING UP WHEN.
>> DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
>> CORRECT. ALSO,
SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL ISSUES
INTERFERE AS WELL.
A COMBINATION OF ALL THOSE
FACTORS.
>> WILL YOU LOOK AT THIS?
YOU'VE COVERED INDIVIDUAL
SHELTERS ARE MORE CONTROVERSIAL,
EVEN THOUGH FAMILY SHELTERS ARE
ALSO CONTROVERSIAL.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
CROWN HEIGHTS RIGHT NOW, THE
ARGUMENT THAT THE COMMUNITY IS
GIVING THE ADMINISTRATION TO
PREVENT A SHELTER FROM OPENING,
THAT IS A SINGLE MEN'S SHELTER.
IT MAY BE A SINGLE MEN'S SHELTER
FOR MEN UNDER 62 WHO HAVE A JOB,
THAT DOES NOT MATTER TO THE
COMMUNITY.
>> IS THAT WHAT IT IS?
>> IT DOES NOT MATTER.
AS SOON AS YOU THINK OF MEN'S
SHELTER YOU THINK OF BELLEVUE,
BEDFORD ARMORY, THOSE PLACES --
YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THINGS THAT
YOU DON'T SEE ON A REGULAR
BASIS AND A LOT OF MEN IN
HOMELESS SHELTERS ARE AFFLICTED
WITH DRUG ADDICTION OR MENTAL
HEALTH ISSUES.
MANY TIMES THESE MEN COULD HAVE
ENTERED SHELTER AND HAVE HAD
SOMETHING THAT HAS NOT BEEN
DIAGNOSED YET OR THEY HAVEN'T
SEEN A MENTAL HEALTH CARE
PROFESSIONAL OR HAVEN'T HAD
SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNSELING.
THEY'RE COMING AND THEY'RE
OBVIOUSLY IN NEED.
THEY'RE NOT ONLY IN NEED OF
SHELTER, THEY'RE IN NEED OF
SERVICES.
IT IS A STARK AND SAD THING TO
SEE WHEN YOU STAND OUTSIDE OF
THESE SHELTERS, WHICH I OFTEN
DO, REPORTING.
>> WE WERE TALKING BEFORE THE
SHOW ABOUT HOW IN THE EARLY
90'S THERE WERE KIND OF A
LEVELING OR A SLIGHT DECLINE.
BUT THAT ALSO WAS A TIME AFTER
KOCH LAUNCHED THIS HUGE
EXPANDED, BUILD 165,000 UNITS.
>> RIGHT.
>> BUT WHAT KOCH HAD THAT NOBODY
HAS TODAY IS ALL THAT VACANT
LAND. IT COST
NOTHING TO GET THE LAND,
THE CITY TO GET THE LAND UPON
WHICH TO ERECT THE HOUSING.
THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
>> I THINK THAT WAS PARTLY THE
REASON WHY FROM ABOUT 1990 TO
ABOUT 2000 --
>> ALSO HART OF THE GIULIANI
ADMINISTRATION.
>> EXACTLY.
YOU HAD A FLAT -- A PRETTY FLAT
SHELTER CENSUS.
YEAH, I THINK PART OF THE ANSWER
TO THAT WAS THE KOCH
ADMINISTRATION PUT A LOT OF
RESOURCES INTO BUILDING MORE
AFFORDABLE UNITS.
MOST OF WHICH DID NOT GO TO THE
HOMELESS.
THAT WAS NOT LIKE A MAGIC
BULLET.
I THINK GIULIANI ADMINISTRATION,
HEY, WOULD WANT GIULIANI TO
COME OVER FOR THINK FOURTH OF
JULY BARBECUE?
PROBABLY NOT.
BUT HE WAS --
>> HE CAN BE QUITE CHARMING.
>> MAYBE, MAYBE.
BUT HE WAS AN EFFECTIVE
ADMINISTRATOR.
HE IMPLEMENTED SORT OF A NEW
APPROACH TO HOMELESSNESS WHICH
WAS WHAT I CALL A PATERNALISTIC
APPROACH WHERE YOU SAID, YES,
YOU'VE GOT A RIGHT TO SHELTER,
THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED UNDER KOCH
AND DINKINS, BUT ALSO YOU'VE GOT
TO PARTICIPATE IN VARIOUS SORTS
OF PROGRAMS WHICH ARE SUPPOSED
TO, A, REHABILITATE YOU, AND B,
DISCOURAGE YOU FROM MOVING IN.
AND THERE WAS A FAIR AMOUNT OF
DISCOURAGEMENT OF THE
ELIGIBILITY PROCESS ESPECIALLY
FOR THE FAMILIES WAS VERY, VERY
TIGHT.
AND, YOU KNOW, UNFORTUNATELY I
THINK THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO
KEEP THE SHELTER CENSUS
MANAGEABLE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A
VERY STRICT ELIGIBILITY PROCESS,
YOU HAVE TO ALLOW IN ONLY THE
VERY WORST CASES.
THAT MEANS MAYBE TURNING AWAY
SOME PEOPLE WHO PERHAPS DESERVE
SOME KIND OF SUPPORT.
BUT IT MAY BE IMPRACTICAL TO
TAKE ON THAT MANY PEOPLE.
AND I THINK THAT THE STORY OF
THE DE BLASIO ADMINISTRATION AND
HOW THEY HANDLED ELIGIBILITY IS
COMPLEX, BUT I THINK AT LEAST
FOR A WHILE THEY DECIDED TO BACK
AWAY FROM SOME OF THE MEANNESS
AS IT WAS PERCEIVED OF THE
BLOOMBERG ADMINISTRATION AND,
YOU KNOW, THEY ENDED UP WITH
MORE PEOPLE THAN THEY WOULD HAVE
HAD IF THEY'D HELD THE GATES.
>> 50% OF FAMILIES NOW ARE
CONSIDERED INELIGIBLE.
THERE'S STILL A LARGE PERCENTAGE
OF FAMILIES THAT ARE SENT AWAY,
ESSENTIALLY.
FINDING PLACES -- SOMEWHERE ELSE
TO GO, CONTACTING FAMILY,
OBVIOUSLY.
EVEN IF YOU ARE FOUND
INELIGIBLE, I'VE MET A LOT OF
FAMILIES THAT ARE GOING THE PATH
THAT ARE FOUND INELIGIBLE.
BUT IT DIDN'T MATTER, THEY'RE
GOING TO CONTINUE --
>> THERE'S A COUPLE THINGS-
ONE IS YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
ONLY ABOUT 50% ARE FOUND
ELIGIBLE.
I DIDN'T MEAN TO IMPLY 99% ARE
FOUND ELIGIBLE.
BUT IT MAY BE THAT 50%
ELIGIBILITY RATE IS NOT WORKABLE
IS WHAT I'M SUGGESTING.
AND IT'S ALSO TRUE THAT FAMILIES
REAPPLY AND REAPPLY.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT FOR A
WHILE, UNDER BLOOMBERG,
IMMEDIATE REAPPLICATIONS WERE
NOT ALLOWED.
AND THEN I BELIEVE THAT
IMMEDIATE REAPPLICATIONS WERE
ALLOWED FOR A WHILE.
SO LOOK, I JUST -- I'M JUST
SAYING THIS.
THERE WAS A PERIOD OF TIME WHEN
PEOPLE TALKED, I THINK SOMETIMES
INCAUTIOUSLY.
BLOOMBERG GAINED IN THIS KIND OF
RHETORIC.
WE'RE GOING TO SOLVE THE
PROBLEM!
BECAUSE WE'VE GOT ONE OR TWO
REALLY GOOD IDEAS AND WE'RE
GOING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM!
AND OF COURSE YOU DIDN'T SOLVE
THE PROBLEM.
AND BLOOMBERG ENDED UP WITH A
LOT OF EGG ON HIS FACE YOU KNOW.
AND I THINK IT'S A VIEW TO
MANAGING THE SYSTEM.
IF WE'RE GOING TO MANAGE THE
SYSTEM, YOU'VE GOT TO TURN EVERY
KNOB THAT YOU'VE GOT AND THAT
INCLUDES ELIGIBILITY.
>> I FIND THAT PEOPLE OFTEN ASK
ME, MAYBE BETTER EQUIPPED TO ASK
THE THEORETICAL QUESTIONS,
PEOPLE ASK ME OFTEN, HOW MANY
PEOPLE ARE "GAMING SYSTEM"?
HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE GOING INTO
SHELTER AND TRYING TO GET A FREE
APARTMENT?
AND I JUST FIND THAT WHEN I'M
TALKING TO FAMILIES, NO ONE
WOULD WANT TO GO THROUGH THIS.
>> THAT'S THE MOST DEMORALIZING
VIEW.
NO FAMILY WANTS TO CHOOSE THE
SHELTER.
>> THERE ARE SOME OTHER THINGS
GOING ON.
ESPECIALLY IN IMMIGRANT
COMMUNITIES WITH A LOT OF
UNDOCUMENTED PEOPLE.
YOU HAVE ILLEGAL BASEMENT
APARTMENTS AND STUFF.
THERE'S TALK ABOUT LEGALIZING
THOSE.
>> I HAD A STUDENT AWHILE AGO
WHO DID HER MASTER'S THESIS ON
CHINESE IMMIGRANTS LIVING IN
ILLEGALLY CONVERTED APARTMENTS.
AND SHE FOUND THAT THERE WERE
QUITE A NUMBER OF THEM.
AND I THINK SHE FOUND THERE WAS
SOMETHING LIKE THAT TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF CONVERTED UNITS
THAT HAD PEOPLE IN THEM.
SO I THINK THAT'S -- ONE OF THE
BIG MISS TR MYSTERIES OF
HOMELESSNESS IS, IS CITY, IF
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HOUSING
SPACE, WE'VE GOT 3 MILLION
HOUSING UNITS?
THAT'S A LOT OF SPACE.
WE'VE GOT 60,000 INDIVIDUALS WHO
ARE HOMELESS.
WELL, ONE WAY THAT'S A LOT.
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE PHYSICAL
SPACE IS THERE.
SO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO IS TRY TO
PROVIDE -- TRY TO DEVELOP SOME
KIND OF MECHANISM WHEREBY IT'S
POSSIBLE AND EVEN PROFITABLE FOR
THOSE 60,000 PEOPLE TO BE MOVED,
AT LEAST SOME OF THEM, INTO ALL
OF THIS SPACE THAT'S SITTING
AROUND UNUSED.
THAT TURNS OUT TO BE VERY
TRICKY.
ONE OBVIOUS THING IS YOU'VE GOT
TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT SAFETY.
THAT'S NUMBER ONE.
NUMBER TWO AS MY STUDENT FOUND
ABOUT THE CHINESE IMMIGRANTS,
THEY COME OVER AND THEN THEY ARE
IMMEDIATELY ACCEPTED INTO THE
COMMUNITY OF CHINESE --
>> UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS?
>> YEAH, THEY'RE IMMEDIATELY
ACCEPTED INTO THE COMMUNITY OF
CHINESE RESTAURANTS, AND THEN
PEOPLE WHO OWN THE RESTAURANTS
KNOW CHINESE PEOPLE WHO HAVE
THESE UNITS, SO YOU IMMEDIATELY
GET LINKED INTO A SYSTEM.
AND UNFORTUNATELY THERE ISN'T
ANY SYSTEM LIKE THAT FOR LINKING
UP FAMILIES WITH SINGLE MOTHERS
WITH A SIMILAR COMMUNITY.
IT'S TOUGH.
BUT I DO THINK YOU'RE RIGHT.
I THINK WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT
SOME WAY TO MAKE BETTER USE OF
THAT SPACE THAT'S GOING UNUSED.
>> I ALSO THINK ANOTHER
CHALLENGE, JUST TO MAKE SURE
THIS IS EMPHASIZED, RECOGNIZE
THAT THE ONLY INTAKE FOR ALL
FAMILIES THAT ARE COMING THROUGH
THE SHELTER SYSTEM IS THE PATH
CENTER IN THE BRONX.
I THINK IT IS HIGHLY UNFAIR AND
UNREASONABLE TO ASK FAMILIES TO
TREK TO THE BRONX IN ORDER TO BE
GOING THROUGH THE ELIGIBILITY
PROCESS.
AND THE ADMINISTRATION HAD
TALKED SOME TIME AGO, AND WE
HAVE TO REVISIT THAT
CONVERSATION, ABOUT ADDING
CAPACITY SO THAT IF YOU'RE IN
THE BRONX, YOU LIVE IN THE
BRONX.
IF YOU'RE IN BROOKLYN, YOU GO
THERE.
I THINK IT'S UNFAIR TO HAVE
FAMILIES GO ALL THE WAY TO THE
BRONX.
>> GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR
CAMPUS.
>> HELLO, MY NAME IS
HAILEY AND I ATTEND LEHMAN
COLLEGE.
DO YOU THINK THAT THE CURRENT
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION COULD
POSSIBLY PERPETUATE THE
HOMELESSNESS ISSUE HERE?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
I THINK THEY PERPETUATE A LOT OF
THINGS.
I THINK SINCE THE ELECTION WE'VE
HAD SO MANY CONVERSATIONS AROUND
IMMIGRATION, AROUND DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE, WOMEN'S RIGHTS.
I THINK EVERYTHING IS ON THE
TABLE.
HIS PROPOSED BUDGET JUST
DEMONSTRATES THAT HE WANTS TO
TURN AWAY AND REVERSE EVERYTHING
THAT WE STAND FOR.
I THINK MANY POTENTIAL VICTIMS
OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, EVEN
VICTIMS OF CRIME THAT NORMALLY
WOULD COME FORWARD, ARE NOW LESS
LIKELY TO COME FORWARD.
I.C.E. AGENTS COMING INTO OUR
CITY, IN OUR SCHOOL, IN
OUR COURTS IS REAL.
AND I AM SCARED ABOUT THE IMPACT
OF WHAT THIS MEANS.
WE'VE STOOD WITH THE MAYOR AND
CHANCELLOR TO PROHIBIT THEM FROM
COMING INTO PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
NEXT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL
WITH COURTS.
EVEN WHILE WE PROTECT CITY
PROPERTY, WHAT HAPPENS IF A
CHILD GOES HOME AND REALIZES MOM
OR DAD WAS DEPORTED?
THAT'S REAL FOR A LOT OF OUR
FAMILIES.
I'M CAREFUL TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
FOCUS ON IMMIGRATION ATTORNEYS
AND OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS THAT
ARE SHARING ACCURATE
INFORMATION.
BECAUSE WE HAVE TO RESIST THIS
ADMINISTRATION.
WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THE PEOPLE
THAT ARE IN OUR CITY UNDERSTAND
THAT WE'RE GOING TO FIGHT LIKE
HELL THAT WE ARE A SANCTUARY
CITY, EVEN NOW THEY'RE TALKING
ABOUT CUTTING OUR FUNDING AS A
SANCTUARY, THAT'S ABSOLUTE
FOLLY.
WE ARE GOING TO STAND FIRM, WE
ARE GOING TO DO WHAT IS
NECESSARY.
WE HAVE THE COURT SYSTEM THAT
WILL FIGHT WITH US.
I DO THINK WE HAVE TO BE MUCH
MORE CREATIVE AND DRAW OUT THOSE
RESIDENTS AND THOSE POTENTIAL
VICTIMS BECAUSE MANY OF THEM ARE
LIVING IN THE SHADOWS OF
DARKNESS RIGHT NOW.
>> ALSO I THINK SECTION 8 IS
INCREDIBLY VULNERABLE IN
THE PRESIDENTS BUDGET AS-
>> SECTION 8 ARE RENTAL
VOUCHS THERE'S PEOPLE GET.
>> NOT ONLY NYCHA
SEEING CUTS ACROSS
THE BOARD, BUT ALSO AFFORDABLE
HOUSING TAX CREDITS THAT HUD,
THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT GET OUT, MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY ARE
ALSO ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK WHICH
MEANS THAT THEY'RE NOT
ESSENTIALLY DISSEMINATED TO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS
AND THERE WILL BE NO AFFORDABLE
HOUSING CONSTRUCTION.
>> TO MY MIND, IT'S ONE OF THE
INTERESTING THINGS THAT TRUMP
AND THE HOMELESS, HOW DOES THE
FEDERAL AGENCY ON THIS ISSUE,
RUN NOW BY BEN CARSON?
I TEACH PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION.
SO HERE'S A QUESTION.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO TAKE SOMEBODY
WHO HAS ABSOLUTELY NOT ONE DAY
OF PUBLIC SERVICE AND PUT HIM IN
CHARGE OF A FEDERAL AGENCY AND
MAKE IT WORK?
THAT'S THE BIG QUESTION I WANT
TO SEE ANSWERED.
THE ANSWER TO MY HYPOTHESIS IS
NO.
>> MY NAME IS KEWAN, I
GO TO JOHN JAY COLLEGE
OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE.
MY QUESTION IS DO YOU BELIEVE
THAT THE HOMELESS SHELTER
PROGRAMS, THEY ARE MORE
AGGRESSIVE TOWARDS MEN?
UNWELCOMING TOWARDS MEN?
AND IS THAT ONE OF THE REASONS
WHY THERE ARE MORE FAMILIES IN
HOMELESS SHELTERS THAN MEN?
>> ACTUALLY, I THINK THE
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS ARE
EVEN LESS STRINGENT FOR SINGLE
MEN AND WOMEN TO ENTER THE
SHELTER SYSTEM.
THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS ARE
EVEN MORE STRINGENT FOR
FAMILIES.
>> THERE'S REALLY EFFECTIVELY NO
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR
SINGLES.
YOU PRESENT YOURSELF AND YOU'RE
IN.
FAMILIES, YOU'VE GOT TO JUMP
THROUGH A LOT OF HOOPS.
>> I WOULD SAY THAT 70% OF
HOMELESS ARE FAMILIES.
I THINK THAT'S A RESPONSE TO THE
NEED, RIGHT?
ALSO BETWEEN FAMILIES AND
SINGLES, I THINK WHAT IS
PREVENTIVE FOR SINGLES TO ENTER
SHELTER IS THERE IS MORE CRIME
AND VIOLENCE AND DRUGS IN SINGLE
SHELTERS.
THAT'S JUST A FACT.
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A FAMILY
SHELTER AND THE CRIME THAT
YOU'LL SEE IS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
WHEN YOU GO TO A SINGLE MEN'S
SHELTER, YOU WILL SEE DRUG
OVERDOSES AND VIOLENCE AND
THINGS LIKE THAT.
>> MY NAME IS FRANK PEREZ, I
ATTEND QUEENS COLLEGE.
MY QUESTION IS, DO YOU BELIEVE
THAT THE CITY IS DOING ENOUGH OF
A JOB TO SERVE THE HOMELESS?
AND GIVEN PRELIMINARY
DISCUSSIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR,
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THEY CAN
DO?
>> WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE BUDGET,
THE HOMELESS SERVICES BUDGET,
IT'S OVER $1 BILLION.
FOR THE FIRST TIME.
I MEAN, YOU COULD ARGUE THAT
WHATEVER'S GOING ON IS NOT FOR
LACK OF MONEY.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
WE HAVE INVESTED SO MUCH MONEY
INTO HOMELESS SERVICES, FOR
EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS, DIVERSION
PROGRAMS, ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS,
SUBSIDY PROGRAMS.
I CAN NAME SO MANY.
I AM VERY INVOLVED IN THIS.
I'M ON THE GENERAL WELFARE
COMMITTEE THAT OVERSEES, I WORK
A LOT WITH LEVIN.
I THINK WHAT WE CAN DO TO DO
BETTER.
WE CAN NEVER STOP TRYING AND WE
CAN NEVER BE COMPLACENT.
BECAUSE AS LONG AS THOSE NUMBERS
THAT YOU HEAR, THE 60,000,
27,000, THOSE NUMBERS ARE REAL.
>> THOSE ARE INDIVIDUALS.
>> THOSE ARE REAL NUMBERS.
I FEEL LIKE AGAIN, HAVE TO MOVE
FAMILIES OUT QUICKER.
WE HAVE TO DEVELOP REAL
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
FAMILIES AT THE LOWEST OF THE
SPECTRUM, 30% AMI, 40.
THEY ALSO HAVE TO HAVE AN
AMBITIOUS AND AGGRESSIVE
PRESERVATION PROGRAM.
WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.
ARE THEY TANGIBLE?
ARE THEY REACHABLE FOR FAMILIES?
I DON'T LIKE TO PUT UNEXPECTED
DEMANDS ON FAMILIES WHEN YOU
KNOW THEY CANNOT COMPLY WITH
THOSE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.
SO THE IDEA, AND I CAN TALK
ABOUT SOME OF THE SUBSIDY
PROGRAMS WHERE IN ORDER TO BE
ELIGIBLE YOU HAVE TO HAVE A
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE CASE.
AND MANY OF THE WORKING CLIENTS
THAT ARE WORKING ARE NOT
ELIGIBLE FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
BECAUSE THEY'RE WORKING.
AND WE WANT THEM TO WORK.
WE DON'T WANT THEM TO BE ON THE
SYSTEM.
I THINK SOME OF THOSE THINGS WE
HAVE TO LOOK AT IN ORDER TO
DRIVE THESE NUMBERS DOWN.
AND TO HAVE A CITY COUNCIL THAT
CAN EMBRACE THIS.
WE DON'T WANT TO SUPPORT 90 NEW
SHELTERS OVER FIVE YEARS.
WE WANT TO SUPPORT AN AMBITIOUS
PLAN THAT CREATES AND PRESERVES
REAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
>> ARE UNDOCUMENTED PEOPLE
ELIGIBLE FOR SHELTER SERVICE IF
I DON'T EVEN KNOW.
>> YES, WE HAVE A SMALL
PERCENTAGE OF FAMILIES WHO ARE
UNDOCUMENTED.
>> YES?
>> I AM A STUDENT AT THE
CUNY GRADUATE CENTER.
MY QUESTION IS ABOUT THE
HOMELESSNESS IN THE SUBWAY
SYSTEM.
WE HAVE STARTED TO SEE AN
INCREASE OF HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS
IN THE SUBWAY SYSTEM.
IS THE CITY DOING ANYTHING TO
ADDRESS THAT ISSUE?
>> ABOUT HOMELESS ON THE SUBWAY.
>> IT'S -- WE'RE ALSO COMING OUT
OF WINTER.
AND THERE'S A LOT OF HOMELESS
INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE GOING TO
RIDE END OF SERVICE LINES.
LINES THAT THEY HAVE COMPLETELY
UNDERGROUND THE ENTIRE TIME, TO
KEEP THEM WARM.
SO YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A LOT
MORE INDIVIDUAL ON THIS THE
SUBWAY IN WINTER.
THAT'S PROBABLY WHY THE PROBLEM
SEEMS SO PRONOUNCED NOW.
>> IT'S VERY INTERESTING.
MAYBE YOU CAN TELL ME IF I'M
RIGHT ABOUT THIS.
I SEEM TO RECALL THAT BEFORE THE
DE BLASIO ADMINISTRATION,
OUTREACH TO HOMELESS PEOPLE IN
THE SUBWAYS WAS RUN BY THE MTA.
AND DIDN'T THE CITY TAKE THAT
BACK OVER?
>> RIGHT.
I'M SO GLAD YOU ASKED THAT
QUESTION.
>> MY QUESTION IS, I'M AN
ACADEMIC, YOU'RE ON THE CITY
COUNCIL, I'M GOING TO PUMP YOU
FOR INFORMATION.
>> SURE.
>> HOW HAS THAT BEEN WORKING?
THAT'S A BIG PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION CHANGE.
MTA, YOU HAVE THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELESS SERVICES.
DID THAT MAKE AN IMPACT OR NOT?
>> I BELIEVE IT DID.
WE SHIFTED A $6 MILLION CONTRACT
FROM MTA TO BOROWY SERVICES.
THEY ARE THE CONTRACTED PROVIDER
TO DEAL WITH HOMELESSNESS ON THE
SUBWAY.
I AGREE WITH WHAT COURTNEY HAS
SAID.
REMEMBER, MANY OF THESE SINGLE
HOMELESS ADULTS WERE LIVING IN
SOMEONE'S APARTMENT, PROBABLY ON
SOMEONE'S COUCH, AND NOW YOU'RE
GOING TO SEE THEM IN THE PARKS,
IN PLAYGROUNDS ALL ACROSS OUR
NEIGHBORHOODS, IT'S WARMER.
WHEN YOU TALK TO MANY OF THE
STREET HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS
YOU'LL FIND MANY OF THEM HAVE NO
SHELTER HISTORY.
MANY OF THEM ARE COMING FROM
SOMEWHERE.
THE IDEA IS A LOT OF THEM DON'T
WANT TO GO TO SHELTER BECAUSE OF
THE CONDITIONS.
TO ME I DON'T LIKE TO HEAR THAT
AND IT MAKES ME MORE
RE-ENERGIZED TO FOCUS ON GREATER
WORK.
YOU SHOULD FEEL SAFE IN A
SHELTER IN THE CITY.
YOU SHOULDN'T SAY YOU HAVE TO
LIVE ON THE STREET JUST TO FEEL
SAFE.
I THINK BSR HAS BEEN DOING GOOD
WORK BUT I WILL TELL YOU,
BECAUSE THE NICE WEATHER IS
COMING, WE WILL START TO SEE
MORE PEOPLE -- EVEN COMING HERE
I SAW A PROPERTY ON 34th STREET
BETWEEN FIFTH AND SIXTH, THERE
WAS A WHOLE COUCH OF AT LEAST
THREE PEOPLE.
THIS IS HAPPENING ALL OVER THE
CITY.
I FEEL LIKE BECAUSE STREET
HOMELESSNESS, IT'S HAPPENING ALL
ACROSS THE CITY.
IN MY DISTRICT, OTHER MEMBERS'
DISTRICTS, AFFLUENT, MINORITY.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT EVERYONE
SEES.
THIS ADMINISTRATION IS REACTING.
>> ALL THE TIME THAT I'VE SPENT
STUDYING THE HOMELESS, PEOPLE ON
THE STREETS, YOU ALWAYS HEAR
MANY OF THEM SAY, I DON'T WANT
TO GO INTO THE SHELTER BECAUSE
IT'S UNSAFE.
I UNDERSTAND AND COURTNEY CAN
TELL YOU THAT THE SINGLE
SHELTERS, IN FACT, PEOPLE DO GET
KILLED AND IT'S VIOLENT AND ALL
THAT.
WHETHER IT'S REALLY MORE UNSAFE
TO BE IN A SHELTER THAN TO BE
LIVING IN THE SUBWAY, OF COURSE,
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RATE OF
VIOLENCE AND MURDER AGAINST
HOMELESS PEOPLE IN THE SUBWAYS
IS.
I'M VERY SKEPTICAL IF YOU
ACTUALLY DEVELOP THAT NUMBER
SOMEHOW THAT IT WOULD REALLY
TURN OUT THAT YOU'RE MAKING THE
SMART MOVE BY STAYING IN THE
SUBWAY.
YOU KNOW, SO I THINK THERE ARE A
LOT OF FACTORS INVOLVED WITH IT.
BUT YOU WANT TO BE CAUTIOUS
BEFORE YOU SIGN OFF ON THE
THESIS THAT, OH, YEAH, THE
STREETS ARE SAFER THAN THE
SHELTERS.
>> THE OTHER THING ABOUT THE
STREET POPULATION IS THEY ARE
GOING TO BE -- FOR LACK OF A
BETTER WORD, THE SICKEST PEOPLE,
THE MOST AFFLICTED WITH DRUG
ABUSE OR MENTAL ILLNESS.
PART OF THAT AFFLICTION THAT
THEY HAVE IS THAT THEY DO NOT
WANT TO GO INSIDE.
THEY FEEL COMFORTABLE IN THEIR
SURROUNDINGS THAT THEY MAY HAVE
BEEN LIVING IN FOR A DECADE ON
THE STREET.
I HAVE A WOMAN WHO LIVES AROUND
THE CORNER FROM ME, SHE'S BEEN
OFFERED HOUSING A LOT.
BUT SHE HAS BEEN LIVING ON THE
SIDEWALK FOR 20-SOMETHING YEARS
AND SHE DOESN'T WANT TO GO
ANYWHERE ELSE.
>> MY NAME IS JERMINE, I
ATTEND QUEENS COLLEGE.
I HEAR A LOT OF TALK OF LIKE
PEOPLE WHO WORK IN SHELTERS OR
WORK FOR THE HOMELESS NOT
GETTING DECENT WAGES.
AND YOU JUST SPOKE ABOUT THE $1
BILLION FOR HOMELESS, FOR
COMBATING HOMELESSNESS.
IS PART OF THAT MONEY GOING TO
INCENTIVIZE PROFESSIONALS TO
WORK FOR HOMELESS?
>> THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION.
BECAUSE A SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE
OF HOMELESS SERVICES ARE
PROVIDED BY CITY WORKERS AND A
SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE, THE
LARGER PERCENTAGE I BELIEVE, ARE
PROVIDED BY NONGOVERNMENTAL
ORGANIZATIONS, NONPROFITS.
THE DRIVE FOR 15 MOVE TO RAISE
WAGES WHICH WILL IMPACT THE
ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO
HELP THOSE PEOPLE FROM BECOMING
HOMELESS.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
IT'S AN ISSUE WE'VE ALSO BEEN
DEALING WITH.
ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES TALKS A LOT
ABOUT THE HUMAN SERVICES
CONTRACTS.
THAT THE CITY HAS WITH MANY OF
OUR NOT FOR PROFIT PROVIDERS.
AND MANY OF THESE WORKERS ARE
NOT A PART OF A UNION.
THEY'RE NOT MUNICIPAL WORKERS.
THEY DON'T HAVE THE UNION
PROTECTION IN TERMS OF WAGES AND
OTHER FRINGE BENEFITS.
AND, YOU KNOW, JUST
SUSTAINABILITY IN TERMS OF JOB
SECURITY.
SO WE'RE TRYING TO WORK WITH
THIS ADMINISTRATION AND LOOK TO
SUPPORT IN THE BUDGET SO WE CAN
BRING THEM UP TO SOMETHING
THAT'S SUSTAINABLE.
LIKE THE FIGHT FOR 15 AND MAKING
SURE THAT NOT ONLY ARE WE
RECOGNIZING THEIR SKILL, BUT
WE'RE GIVING THEM THE SALARY
THAT THEY RIGHTFULLY DESERVE.
>> AND THAT WILL KEEP THEM IN
THE JOB.
>> YES, SIR.
>> AUSTIN JOHNSON, I'M FROM
JOHN JAY COLLEGE.
I WORKED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES IN NASSAU
COUNTY.
AND --
>> WHERE?
>> IN NASSAU COUNTY.
AND WHILE WORKING THERE, A
PERSON COULD BE HOMELESS AND
WITHIN THAT DAY GO TO THE DSS,
GET SCREENED, GET HOUSING, GET
ENROLLED IN A JOB PROGRAM, GET
MENTAL HEALTH SCREENING --
>> WE'RE RUNNING SHORT OF TIME.
>> WHAT IS PREVENTING
NEW YORK CITY FROM CREATING A
SEAMLESS WEB OF RESOURCES?
>> THERE'S BEEN 35 YEARS OF
EFFORT.
HALF A MINUTE LEFT, ANYBODY WANT
TO TACKLE IT?
>> I THINK IT'S DEMAND, I THINK
IT'S VOLUME, I THINK IT'S
AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES, I
THINK IT'S WAGES, THE WAGE GAP
WE'RE CONSTANTLY DEALING WITH.
I THINK IT'S ACCESS AND
OPPORTUNITY FOR MANY FAMILIES
AND SINGLE ADULTS.
WE RECOGNIZE THAT YEARS AGO IT
WAS JUST ABOUT HOUSING FAMILIES,
ALL THEY NEEDED WAS AN APARTMENT
AND IT WOULD BE FINE.
NOW IT'S NOT JUST HOUSING.
IT'S SOCIAL SERVICES, EDUCATION,
VOCATION, A MULTITUDE OF
SERVICES THAT HAVE TO BE COUPLED
WITH HOUSING.
>> LET ME CUT US OFF.
I WAS A REPORTER FOR A LONG
TIME, I ALWAYS MAKE THE
DEADLINE.
THANK YOU ALL, SEE YOU NEXT TIME
ON CUNY FORUM.
THANK YOU ALL.
♪ [THEME MUSIC] ♪
For more infomation >> Ford Focus Wagon 1.4-16V Cool Edition - Duration: 0:56. 
For more infomation >> BMW 3 Serie 318 Ci Cabrio Exe *Individual* Leer,Clima,Pdc - Duration: 1:03. 
For more infomation >> Honda Civic 1.4i-VTEC Sport - Duration: 1:03. 
For more infomation >> Peugeot 508 SW BLUE LEASE EXECUTIVE 1.6 E-HDI 2-TRONIC - Duration: 1:05. 
For more infomation >> "İĞRENÇ GÖRÜNÜYORSUN" SOSYAL DENEYİ - Duration: 6:18. 
For more infomation >> Splinter Cell: Conviction - Realistic Walkthrough/Detonado #03-1 - Price Airfield - Duration: 12:43. 
For more infomation >> اسهل من الشباكية بابوش او بليغات بالزنجلان معسلين Babouches blighates ramadan - Duration: 7:45. 
No comments:
Post a Comment