Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mayor Bloomberg & New York bussing homeless families out of town

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Mayor Bloomberg & New York bussing homeless families out of town

    New York pays for one-way bus tickets for homeless families

    There is an expensive (to run) homeless shelter that houses entire homeless families. Mayor Bloomberg has authorized the buying of bus tickets to get families out of there to live with relatives that agree to having the homeless family stay with them.

    None of the returned families have been to homeless shelters located in the places they have been relocated to.
    Oh Holy Trinity, the Goddess Caffeine'Na, the Great Cowthulhu, & The Doctor, Who Art in Tardis, give me strength. Moo. Moo. Java. Timey Wimey

    Avatar says: DAVID TENNANT More Evidence God is a Woman
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Originally posted by IDrinkaRum View Post
    None of the returned families have been to homeless shelters located in the places they have been relocated to.
    Sooo, it's a good thing, then?
    Any comment I make should not be taken as an absolute, unless I say it should be. Even this one.

    Comment

    • #3
      Originally posted by IDrinkaRum View Post
      Mayor Bloomberg has authorized the buying of bus tickets to get families out of there to live with relatives that agree to having the homeless family stay with them.
      Nice buses.

      Originally posted by The Article
      Families have been sent to 24 states and five continents, mostly to Puerto Rico, Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas.
      Buses that can get to five continents from the USA are pretty rare, I would think.

      On a serious note, this sounds like a good thing all around. People who can't afford to go home any other way get to go someplace where they will be happier. The city saves money, and the people get a good deal.

      ETA: Numbers from the article say 550 families would have cost the city $36,000 each. Total savings so far is almost $20,000,000. Not exactly chump change.

      Furthermore, according to the article:

      Originally posted by The Article
      City officials say there are no limits on where a family can be sent and families can reject the offer.
      They don't have to take the offer. All in all, it sounds like Mayor Bloomberg's team has found a way to make people happier and save taxpayers money.

      Personally, I fail to see a problem.
      Last edited by Pedersen; 07-29-2009, 11:05 PM.

      Comment

      • #4
        Dear lord the comments. Maybe that's the issue?

        Apparently "Families have been sent to 24 states and five continents, mostly to Puerto Rico, Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas." equals "FREE RIDES FOR STUPID ILLEGAL MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS!!!!"

        I think my favorite comment is "OMG COMPANION!??!?!?! GET MARRIED AND STOP FATHERING BASTARD CHILDREN... BTW BASTARDS ARE CHILDREN WITHOUT A FATHER." So much fail there.

        Comment

        • #5
          This is the sort of thing government is supposed to do!

          Bravo! Encore
          All units: IRENE
          HK MP5-N: Solving 800 problems a minute since 1986

          Comment

          • #6
            I didn't read the comments (don't know if there were any when I posted the story).

            I think it's a good idea too, myself.

            These families can't find jobs/places to live in New York. Why not send them some place else where they can find work/places to live/have family or friends near by who can help them out better than the local government.

            I think it's a win-win situation and I wish more states were willing to do it.
            Oh Holy Trinity, the Goddess Caffeine'Na, the Great Cowthulhu, & The Doctor, Who Art in Tardis, give me strength. Moo. Moo. Java. Timey Wimey

            Avatar says: DAVID TENNANT More Evidence God is a Woman

            Comment

            • #7
              Even though I'm not from the US (Aussie-born-and-bred-here), I still think this is a good idea. The city gets less overcrowded and the families aren't hanging around for job opportunities to rise up when there are plenty of them interstate. I wish that my city would do that...then again....some of the commenters sound like ones over here

              Comment

              • #8
                Originally posted by Pedersen
                Buses that can get to five continents from the USA are pretty rare, I would think
                Wasn't the Boeing 747 called an Airbus???

                Anyway, if it's a voluntary thing, I see no obvious issues with it. After all, how many times would people say "if only I could just get out of here, and go to... but I can't afford it"?
                Last edited by Slytovhand; 07-31-2009, 04:09 PM. Reason: fix quote tag
                ZOE: Preacher, don't the Bible got some pretty specific things to say about killing?

                SHEPHERD BOOK: Quite specific. It is, however, Somewhat fuzzier on the subject of kneecaps.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Originally posted by Slytovhand View Post
                  Wasn't the Boeing 747 called an Airbus???
                  Being in Canada, and passingly familiar with the Airbus scandal, I can say no. They aren't called that. Airbus is actually a separate company to Boeing.
                  Any comment I make should not be taken as an absolute, unless I say it should be. Even this one.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Is there anyone against this plan?
                    I can't imagine a counter argument.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Flyndaran View Post
                      I can't imagine a counter argument.
                      The only counter-argument I can imagine is "We shouldn't be supporting their lazy asses in the first place! Cut assistance for the projects, and let their families and friends help them out to get home on their own dime."

                      It's not a good one, but I can imagine it.
                      Any comment I make should not be taken as an absolute, unless I say it should be. Even this one.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Originally posted by BroomJockey View Post
                        The only counter-argument I can imagine is "We shouldn't be supporting their lazy asses in the first place! Cut assistance for the projects, and let their families and friends help them out to get home on their own dime."

                        It's not a good one, but I can imagine it.
                        I can't read that without imagining it in an Andy Rooney crotchety old man voice.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Flyndaran View Post
                          I can't read that without imagining it in an Andy Rooney crotchety old man voice.
                          Lol. I was going for Archie Bunker (no idea who he was played by), but Andy works as well
                          Any comment I make should not be taken as an absolute, unless I say it should be. Even this one.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            The counter argument I have heard is that it is shunting the burden of homelessness off to another area.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Originally posted by anriana View Post
                              The counter argument I have heard is that it is shunting the burden of homelessness off to another area.
                              But someone wrote that the new areas haven't been inundated with more homeless people.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X