NYC cuts $10k/yr rental vouchers leaving many homeless then spends $36k to house them

[JEDI]

http://cnnradio.cnn.com/2013/01/28/nyc-budget-cuts-cause-homeless-crisis/?hpt=hp_t3

It costs $36,000 a year to shelter a homeless family in New York City. In comparison, a rental voucher is $10,000 a year. So it’s more than three times more expensive to have that family in shelter than it is to give that family permanent housing

it’s a prime example of how seeking short term solutions to budget problems can result in more tax dollars being spent down the road.

 

[Doppel]

The problem here is "NYC families". NYC has a low number of kids per household compared with other areas. Crowded, expensive, it really is no place to raise a family which is why most don't bother. Rent there is Fed as evidenced by this article.

 

[nehalem256]

If you cannot afford to live in a city maybe you should move to a city you can afford to live in?

 

[glenn1]

Not that I really care what New Yorkers waste their money on, but they should have eliminated both the voucher and the taxpayer-funded shelters. Provide them with a taxpayer funded move to another location with lower cost-of-living if they can't afford rent in NYC. I'm completely baffled why good-intented progressives can't figure this out; you don't put out food for stray animals then act mystified when they won't leave your house when you switch to Fancy Feast to Purina Cat Chow because it's cheaper.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Overwhelmingly agree with nehalem and glenn on this. I never understood why people live like dirt in the projects of New York / New Jersey, etc. The amount of money they make there could get a couple of acres in Georgia, and a hard, but well-paying manufacturing job.. Alot better than sitting in squalor in the dead of winter with barely-functioning heat.

 

[Genx87]

Derp remove rent vouchers, pay more in homless shelters derp.

Of course they could eliminate the problem all together if they stopped subsidizing people's unsustainable living conditions.

 

[Doppel]

Not that I really care what New Yorkers waste their money on, but they should have eliminated both the voucher and the taxpayer-funded shelters. Provide them with a taxpayer funded move to another location with lower cost-of-living if they can't afford rent in NYC. I'm completely baffled why good-intented progressives can't figure this out; you don't put out food for stray animals then act mystified when they won't leave your house when you switch to Fancy Feast to Purina Cat Chow because it's cheaper.

Because "Headline: NYC hates poor people so much it is payin them to leave"

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

If you cannot afford to live in a city maybe you should move to a city you can afford to live in?

Get the fuck out of here with your logic and reasoning. That has NO bearing here!

 

[Jaskalas]

It costs $36,000 a year to shelter a homeless family...

WTF? Might as well just pay them that as a salary and ship them down south to live like normal people, not as government pets. That price tag is outrageously expensive.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
it’s a prime example of how seeking short term solutions to budget problems can result in more tax dollars being spent down the road.

Is it?

Or is it a prime example of political gamesmanship? I.e., one side wants to curtail govt welfare and the other doesn't so it creates a new 'loophole' to continue the subsidy - in this case more funding for shelters.

And which is politically more palatable - supporting high dollar (free) vouchers to subsidize rent or more funding for shelters for the homeless? I think the latter. No matter which side a politician is on, Dem or Repub, it's much easier to support homeless shelters.

Fern

 

[Dari]

If you cannot afford to live in a city maybe you should move to a city you can afford to live in?

Overwhelmingly agree with nehalem and glenn on this. I never understood why people live like dirt in the projects of New York / New Jersey, etc. The amount of money they make there could get a couple of acres in Georgia, and a hard, but well-paying manufacturing job.. Alot better than sitting in squalor in the dead of winter with barely-functioning heat.

This would make sense if they had a job lined up where they're moving to or had friends or family there. Social mobility is easy when you are single. It is extremely difficult when you have a family and are already poor.

 

[Incorruptible]

If you cannot afford to live in a city maybe you should move to a city you can afford to live in?

This, They have no right to that money which belongs to the taxpayer. Cut the whole program and stop this waste

 

[thecoolnessrune]

This would make sense if they had a job lined up where they're moving to or had friends or family there. Social mobility is easy when you are single. It is extremely difficult when you have a family and are already poor.

That's exactly what other people are already saying. You would do more good giving people 10 grand to leave the area, than paying 10-30 grand a year to just barely get by in an untenable area.

 

[HumblePie]

If you cannot afford to live in a city maybe you should move to a city you can afford to live in?

The who will the rich have to run their starbucks, mcdonalds, and walgreens?

 

[nehalem256]

This would make sense if they had a job lined up where they're moving to or had friends or family there. Social mobility is easy when you are single. It is extremely difficult when you have a family and are already poor.

If you are living on the streets you pretty much have no where to go but up. I suggest North Dakota.

The who will the rich have to run their starbucks, mcdonalds, and walgreens?

High school students?

Or as low wage earners leave the city there will be fewer people to take those jobs and they will be forced to raise wages or shut down.

 

[Dari]

That's exactly what other people are already saying. You would do more good giving people 10 grand to leave the area, than paying 10-30 grand a year to just barely get by in an untenable area.

No it isn't. THey're saying it's easy to just up and leave. Also, these vouchers are for people living in the City. You cannot use it to live in another place.

If you are living on the streets you pretty much have no where to go but up. I suggest North Dakota.



High school students?

Or as low wage earners leave the city there will be fewer people to take those jobs and they will be forced to raise wages or shut down.

Tell me, how are they supposed to up and leave the City and move to North Dakota or Georgia or wherever the fuck? Where is that money coming from and, without a job lined up, what makes you think they won't become a burden in that new area?

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Ah the joys of a rent "control" city pricing out poor and middle-income people from cities.

 

[Dari]

Ah the joys of a rent "control" city pricing out poor and middle-income people from cities.

What? What does rent control have to do with this? Also, if it wasn't for rent control, a lot of middle income and poor people would not be able to live in the City. They would be relegated to the outer-boroughs or worse. So it's the exact opposite of what you're saying.

 

[Zebo]

social welfare is shit in this country. somebody else a fat cat is reaping at least 75% of that 36K thats why it's done. dont pretend its the homeless mans fault


fuk u guys are ignorant. apply for fani 0% loans RN and no pmi put ppl in at least 4 houses and get rich.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

What? What does rent control have to do with this? Also, if it wasn't for rent control, a lot of middle income and poor people would not be able to live in the City. They would be relegated to the outer-boroughs or worse. So it's the exact opposite of what you're saying.

Bullshit. Rent control has everything to do with how rents sky-rocket after such a policy is enacted especially in cities like New York. In fact the outcomes of rent control is one of the most well agreed upon, well cited and studied issue in economics.

When the prices for rents are hit with a artificial government induced price ceiling (which caps rents) development for middle-income and low income (outside of government subsidies for building low income housing) rental developments in the private market is gutted as the profit motive is removed from the market place for developers and apartment owners of such units.

So all you are left with is low income subsidized housing being developed at tax payer expense and luxury apartments (many of which were once older non-luxury apartments renovated to become luxury apartments) renting for outrageous prices that only the wealthy can afford. New York and SF are classic text book examples of how these polices inevitably price out the poor, reduce quality of apartments for rent in addition to suppressing the supply of apartments for rent in the market place.


Edit: Furthermore the only people who benefit in the end are the wealthy many of whom scope up low rent apartments for cheap from those who are elderly and than hold them indefinitely.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius/article/Rent-control-sometimes-benefiting-the-rich-3638604.php

In fact ex-New York mayor Ed Koch was known for holding onto a rent control apartment in the city of which he only used as a personal library for himself.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html

Here's Paul Krugmen explaining and laying out the same case if you're to liberal to listen and understand.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent-affair.html

Edit 2: The rent vouchers are tacit admission by NYC's government that "Rent Control" does not work as intended despite the label this rent/price capping policy has been given to sell it to the ignorant public.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

What? What does rent control have to do with this? Also, if it wasn't for rent control, a lot of middle income and poor people would not be able to live in the City. They would be relegated to the outer-boroughs or worse. So it's the exact opposite of what you're saying.

You know what middle income and poor people should be doing???? Living within their means. If that involves commuting from outside the city then so be it.

I can't believe we (us working people) are giving anyone $10k/year in "rent vouchers", let alone $36k.

I weep for this country.

 

[Dari]

Bullshit. Rent control has everything to do with how rents sky-rocket after such a policy is enacted especially in cities like New York. In fact the outcomes of rent control is one of the most well agreed upon, well cited and studied issue in economics.

When the prices for rents are hit with a artificial government induced price ceiling (which caps rents) development for middle-income and low income (outside of government subsidies for building low income housing) rental developments in the private market is gutted as the profit motive is removed from the market place for developers and apartment owners of such units.

So all you are left with is low income subsidized housing being developed at tax payer expense and luxury apartments (many of which were once older non-luxury apartments renovated to become luxury apartments) renting for outrageous prices that only the wealthy can afford. New York and SF are classic text book examples of how these polices inevitably price out the poor, reduce quality of apartments for rent in addition to suppressing the supply of apartments for rent in the market place.


Edit: Furthermore the only people who benefit in the end are the wealthy many of whom scope up low rent apartments for cheap from those who are elderly and than hold them indefinitely.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius/article/Rent-control-sometimes-benefiting-the-rich-3638604.php

In fact ex-New York mayor Ed Koch was known for holding onto a rent control apartment in the city of which he only used as a personal library for himself.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html

Here's Paul Krugmen explain laying out the same case if you're to liberal to listen and understand.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent-affair.html

It's obvious, from the article, that you either don't know what you're talking about or you're anti-rent control for simple economic reasons. Well, rent control don't exist for economic reasons, they exist for socioeconomic reasons. That is not difficult to understand. Also, no owner an apartment building is forced into the rent control scheme. Those that sign up for it get tax breaks. If you don't want the breaks you don't sign up. And a lot of buildings do, including some of the most exclusive in the City.

Will a ceiling cause landlords to neglect apartments? Of course, that comes with the territory. But we are veering off-topic.

 

[Dari]

You know what middle income and poor people should be doing???? Living within their means. If that involves commuting from outside the city then so be it.

I can't believe we (us working people) are giving anyone $10k/year in "rent vouchers", let alone $36k.

I weep for this country.

Well, when landlords are allowed to raise rent with scant regard to the inflation rate or increases in wages, you will have a schism. This is extremely unhealthy and distressing because we are talking about an inelastic product here. In New York, we have a lot of extremely rich foreigners investing in real estate because they do not trust their governments at home. This is driving up property values and some people cannot keep up.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

It's obvious, from the article, that you either don't know what you're talking about or you're anti-rent control for simple economic reasons. Well, rent control don't exist for economic reasons, they exist for socioeconomic reasons. That is not difficult to understand. Also, no owner an apartment building is forced into the rent control scheme. Those that sign up for it get tax breaks. If you don't want the breaks you don't sign up. And a lot of buildings do, including some of the most exclusive in the City.

Will a ceiling cause landlords to neglect apartments? Of course, that comes with the territory. But we are veering off-topic.

It's like talking to a wall.

Even if it exists for "socioeconomic" (which is a bullshit cop out for not wanting to understand the actual economic impact it has on the poor on your part) reasons the facts is that rent control is harmful for those who are at the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder, i.e. those it claims to want to help.

It is harmful for those people because the known destructive nature of rent control policies on rental markets causes a suppression of supply, a reduction of the quality of supply left available on the market and causes the direct opposite of what it claims to do for those entering the market place, which is control rents. Instead "rent control" (a deceitful name for such a policy if ever there was one) causes rents to spike higher and higher overtime due to the aforementioned effects. Clearly you're trying to avoid having to deal with being flat out wrong and you are burying your head in the sand. And again the rent vouchers are the cherry on top which provides ample example of the admission by those who support this flawed policy as to why it does not work. If "Rent Control" were working as intended rent vouchers would not have to be provided to NYC's poor who find it increasingly more difficult to find affordable apartments to rent as the decades roll on by and this horrible policy is allowed to wreck and distort the rental market in that city.

 

[drebo]

I don't understand how it can cost $3k/mo to put a family up in a multitenant shelter. What the hell are they doing? Putting them up in a Hilton?

Shit, I could feed a family of 5 on $20/day (that's $10k/yr) with Campbell's canned soup. It'd even be chunky! I could do it for a LOT less by making soup in a 5 gallon stock pot and feeding 10 families of 5.

This just sounds like corruption and bullshit to me.