Monday, March 13, 2023
Rain. High 44 degrees.
Notices
Our calendar has lots of local events! Click on the link or the lady in the upper righthand corner to look.
Explainer
By Carol Tannenhauser
With discussion continuing for another month about the safe haven for homeless people opening on W. 83rd Street in April (wisely extended by Community Board 7 at the March board meeting), there is time to clear up some of the confusion about the facility, resulting, in part, from the way it has been portrayed in the press:
“The city unveiled a plan this week to house 108 vagrants — without background checks — in a new homeless shelter across from a school on the Upper West Side,” the New York Post announced last week.
Forgetting (for now) the antiquated reference to “vagrants,” a safe haven is not the same thing as a homeless shelter, as defined by the city. Although both are transitional facilities intended to shelter homeless people temporarily while permanent housing is secured for them, the similarity ends there. The differences begin with the segments of the homeless population each type of facility serves.
New York City homeless shelters, administered by the Department of Homeless Services (DHS), are required by law to provide shelter to anyone who “lacks another housing alternative.” This so-called “right to shelter” was established in New York City in 1979 following a landmark court case “laying the groundwork for the city’s billion-dollar shelter system,” according to City & State.
Safe havens are also administered by DHS, but only accept homeless people who are living “outside,” i.e. in the streets, parks, and subways, known as the “unsheltered homeless.” These are people who refuse the city’s offer of shelter, and cannot be forced to accept it or services. Many people lose their housing — they’re kicked out or can’t pay their rent — and turn immediately to the shelter system. Others would rather brave the streets than enter it.
“In many cases, mental illness and substance abuse play a role, but it also has to do with holding onto their independence,” said Lisa Lombardi, deputy executive director of Urban Pathways, who oversees the only other safe haven on the Upper West Side, in an earlier interview. “These are people who have fallen through every available social safety net and for one reason or another may be distrustful of institutional settings,” added a spokesperson for DHS. “They may have had a bad experience when they turned to government for help in the past. Our work is a slow, persistent process of rebuilding that trust.”
Homeless shelters can be huge, like the notorious, 1,000-bed Bellevue Men’s Shelter on East 30th Street, which also serves as the intake center for single, homeless men. The intake process is highly bureaucratic, requiring documentation, such as identification and proof of last address, not readily accessed by many homeless people. Once accepted, clients are assigned to facilities reputed to be dangerous and drug-ridden, with dormitories lined with cots. They are expected to be out of the shelter by day, seeking employment or housing, and back every night for a 10 p.m. curfew, when they must “sign for their beds” or lose them.
The only way into a safe haven, on the other hand, is with an outreach worker who escorts clients through the front door. Funded by the city, outreach workers know well the people they bring in; typically, they’ve been working with them for a while, trying to convince them to come inside. Once they do, they get a bed in a room with one, two or three other people of the same gender, with access to the facility 24 hours a day. The population is usually smaller than in a homeless shelter. Residents receive three meals a day, if they want them, and have access to a shower and all the activities, services, and staff that are provided — for example, case managers, housing specialists, psychiatrists, and substance-abuse counselors. There’s no curfew and they only sign in for their beds once every 72 hours to maintain residency.
New York City pays rent to the owner of the building where the safe haven will be. DHS chose the site and set the budget, which determines the number of units, or “beds,” in this case, 108. As for why the site was chosen, the reality is, CB7 has been requesting a safe haven in our district for three years in their end-of-year, district-needs statements. Here is, in part, what they said in 2022:
“Safe Haven Funding is needed to build an additional Safe Haven shelter in Community District 7 to most effectively address the rising number of those living on the street in the district. The Safe Haven model includes smaller facilities (50-60 beds) and supportive services, and is considered to be the most effective means by which to persuade those living on the street to accept an offer of shelter.” (FY22 Overall Capital Budget Priority #4.)
Another often confused and misused term on the city’s housing continuum is “supportive housing.” Supportive housing is permanent, affordable housing for formerly homeless people and others “who have significant barriers to maintaining housing on their own, such as serious mental illness, substance abuse, or poor physical health as a result of years spent living unsheltered,” explains the website of Breaking Ground, the nonprofit that will run the new safe haven for the city. The 33-year-old organization also owns and manages supportive housing, in some cases occupied by former residents of the five other safe havens it currently runs throughout the five boroughs, including two in Manhattan. “The fundamental characteristic of [supportive housing],” the website continues, “is that it includes access to on-site, supportive services that sustain tenants on a path of long-term stability, including case management, social activities, and educational offerings that enhance self-sufficiency and quality of life.”
The main things that set tenants of supportive housing apart from those living in transitional facilities are: a lease and a key.
Addendum: You may be thinking, “wait a minute, back up a bit. CB7 may have asked for a safe haven in the neighborhood, but I didn’t. CB7 doesn’t represent me.” Ah, but they do. Yes, they are appointed — but by borough presidents whom Upper West Side voters supported overwhelmingly: Mark Levine, and before him, Gale Brewer. There’s a long history of progressive politics in New York City. And, like it or not, we are still a largely progressive neighborhood. That may be changing, but those are our roots. Let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water.
Take care and have a good week.
Correction: The city does not own the building as we first reported. The city rents the building from the owner.
Progressive is one thing, but succumbing to the interests of companies making big bucks in homeless housing has nothing to do with progressive values. They are there for money under the guise of compassion, they are not benefiting anyone but themselves.
Whew! Quite a read. The real question is.” Do the outreach workers also escort “clients,” out the front door as well, while monitoring their whereabouts and behavior in the neighborhood?
Please don’t dismiss our feelings about homeless shelters in the neighborhood as invalid. We are not NIMBY, we care about where we live.
This is the second article trying to convince us it is a good thing, and you are not progressive if you are against it.
Reporting is one thing, indoctrination and gaslighting is not something WSR should resort to.
You are, actually NIMBY, as are most of the opponents of this Safe Haven. What you seem to not understand is the people whom this Safe Haven will house are already IMBY – they’re just on your street instead of inside, with much needed services available to them. So why the fuss? I’ve already handed out this info to several of my homeless neighbors. You should see their eyes light up when I explain the difference between this “Safe Haven” vs a “Shelter”. Especially the limited number of occupants per room, the services available and the fact that they aren’t kicked out every morning. These people are TERRIFIED of being robbed, hurt or worse in a traditional shelter. Imagine for just a moment feeling SAFER sleeping on a sidewalk in the rain, snow, dog pee and everything else we ealk on without even thinking about it than in a traditional shelter. Geez!
DRM,
In general, broadly labeling or insulting or attacking people’s concerns is not the way to persuade them.
IMBY? All 108 of them?
Chiding us, labeling us because we don’t want more crime, especially near a school?
Nobody says the homeless shouldn’t be housed. As many pointed out, there are more appropriate places for that, cheaper, greener, tougher for drug dealers to access. Not in a high-density residential area that’s is also very expensive.
We have Kendra law against mentally ill. that is tough to enforce. We have to protect our children and ourselves. We don’t need to sacrifice our safety to line the pockets of so called non-profit.
We don’t vote for CB 7! They seem to be making a lot of decisions
The decisions of a Community Board are only advisory. No. They do not make the decisions. But they do vote so as to give a recommendation to the city agency making the decision.
You get what you vote for. Wow, i’m pleasantly surprised that WSR would use that title.
There’s hope for NYC (and NYS) yet!
Thank you. This is helpful clarification.
The right right to shelter should be an obligation of New York State or the United States of America, not New York City. As I have said repeatedly, many of these homeless people would be better served outside New York City, where housing can be provided at a lower cost and they are removed from what is often a destructive environment. Many of them have no ties to the City. This is not a NIMBY response – this is the response of a) someone who truly wants to help them, and b) a taxpayer who wants his money used efficiently.
I know that homeless shelters are often unpleasant, scary places but I also question the judgement of the long-term street residents, who are the target audience for this facility. I live close to the man who lives outside the old Victoria’s Secret at 84th and Broadway and have seen him for years. He is generally relatively harmless, but he has his flare-ups and is constantly exposing himself. I do not want 50 or 100 people like him living across the street from an elementary school, regardless of how much support they say they are providing. There are many other similar facilities that claim to offer lots of support yet problems constantly arise.
Finally, a community board, if it is to have such power, should be appointed at a neighborhood level, not by a borough president. And they should be more responsive to those whom they represent.
Common sense point.
Unfortunately, common sense appears to take a back seat all too often in this city.
I agree — people are best served outside the expensive city. It’s cleaner, it’s cheaper, it has more possibilities for “things to do,” learning something, not being enticed by old, bad influences, etc.
u r forgetting these are sick people!!
But maybe the service providers don’t want those jobs? Have to commute or move? Accept lower pay?
If he’s constantly exposing himself, he is not relatively harmless. That’s a sex crime that he’s committing repeatedly.
I agree. But it isn’t like he is walking around with his pants down all the time. It is way too much, but not constant. So the bulk of the time his pants are up and he is “relatively harmless.” And I am the last one to defend him. But I wanted to clarify based on your response.
Such biased reporting from WSR. You failed to mention the lack of background checks, proximity to school or investigate why Shelly Fine is so interested in the this facility. Listening to CB7 worry about the appearance of new windows on the 17th floor of a building more than they care about the saftey and welfare of its tax paying residents is a study in failure. Do you really think the person in front of Victoria’s Secret who has refused Goddard’s services for years is suddenly going to be escorted here? Do we even have 108 unsheltered homeless people in the area? I would say no, so they will be coming from other areas most certainly. This is dangerous and is going to be the Lucerne and Belleclaire all over again.
And what was wrong with the Lucerne or Belleclaire??? People were housed during the worst period of the pandemic, the hotel operators were kept solvent with taxpayer money, some residents transitioned to permanent housing and found employment. The sky didn’t fall, despite all the wide-eyed fearmongering about HAVING POOR PEOPLE NEXT DOOR.
I spoke with the staff at Nice-Matin quite often during that period when the Lucerne was used as shelter housing. They had ZERO problem with the hotel residents. That should speak volumes
Re the Lucerne and Bellclaire : does zero problems include seeing urinating, defecating, fornicating on Broadway? And lots of drug and alcohol use?
Jane, I think the key words in your post were “taxpayer money.” I’m 67, riddled with arthritis, and multiple other ailments, and would love to retire and get to enjoy some of my working-non-stop for 46 years, but the cost of living and taxes are too high here. I think my patience with pouring endless money into drug addicts and criminal perpetrators has worn thin. This has nothing to do with “poor people.” It never has.
That’s nonsense. There was an immediate increase in drug dealing in the area. I personally observed multiple drug deals at the corner there, as well as Bway/79th. Folks who clearly had no other/previous business there, hanging out for prolonged periods of time. Others had observed acts of public lewdness (I’ll spare you the details) related to the Belleclaire around 77 and Bway.
In fairness, it didn’t last long, because of the public outcry about it, but it did require that outcry and significant uptick in security activity to change the pattern that originally set in.
Noone cares if people next door are poor. People care if those people present/create danger. And that’s not fearmongering and it doesn’t require the sky falling down. Dismissing this is stupid and irresponsible.
What a rosy and completely inaccurate picture. Read some reports of what was happening around the Lucerne at that time. The drug deals, the panhandling, the sucker punches of random passersby, the harassment of women, the public urination. All of this was documented repeatedly.
Its not about income levels. It’s behaviors. Wealthy, poor, or anywhere in the large middle that is more than represented in the neighborhood, nobody wants to see or experience behaviors that place them or others at risk or diminish safety and quality of life. A person’s right to shelter (if you accept that) does not mean they can behave in antisocial ways. Regardless if they are paying for their own rent or the tac payers do it. And regardless their mental state or the life they lived prior to moving into the neighborhood. Good Neighbor Policy goes two ways.
Do not the people who live in the area and pay taxes to support these facilities have any rights at all? In this case, the right to visit a restaurant that they have patronized for years.
I don’t live close enough to 79th to have had frequent experiences with the population housed at those hotels. What you say is heartening, but is it also true what others have commented — that many of the newly installed and housed residents were disruptive on the street and attracted drug dealers to the neighborhood?
I addressed this in a way that was a bit combative and snarky but no more so than many other posts that see the light of day here. Unfortunately, I got censored so you will not get the benefit of my observations unless WSR stops being so defensive (WSR generally does an excellent job but seems to be skewing a bit woke lately).
Long story short, there were definitely residents of the Lucerne who were disruptive. Unfortunately, some of our neighbors get very defensive and/or choose to ignore it. It occurred at the start of a pandemic so it is slightly excusable, but still should not have happened. This is not happening at the start of a pandemic, so it should be avoided.
I can see the Lucerne from my building’s front door. Walk by it every single day. Had absolutely no negative experiences with the men.
Maybe you kept your shades closed. Because I live three blocks away but often walked by on the way bringing my kids to/from school. It was unpleasant and there were ambulances outside the Lucerne because of drugs throughout the day.
‘Kept (my )shades closed? I said that I walked by it, on my two little feet, every day; often multiple times a day.
Ambulances – which we have on my block too – make me sad, because people being sick is sad. They don’t make me feel threatened
‘Unpleasant’ . ? I did not find it unpleasant. Then again, I am not afraid of people who are different from me.
Ambulances at places like the Lucerne of those days should make you feel threatened, both physically and economically.
There’s no higher cost of healthcare than emergency response and ER visit.
A rolling caravan of ambulances at shelters shows exactly what most of fear/believe about them: 1) inappropriate activities of significant magnitude as to endanger the lives of the “vulnerable population” there, 2) lack of appropriate services (contrary to the claims) to handle things in a more effective manner, 3) significant likelihood that these activities (drugs) spill in and affect the surrounding neighborhood, 4) complete inability to control the tax-payer funded costs of this care,, etc, etc.
Being “sad” is a useless sentiment that helps noone. Being realistic about what’s going on – rather than focusing on rosy sentiments and signaling – and demanding the appropriate actions from those entrusted with this care should be the priority.
No one is afraid of people who are different from us, stop with this virtue signaling. We don’t want to attract even more of aggressive mentally ill people to the neighborhood. Especially across the school.
On two occasions I was approached, in front of the Lucerne, by two different men, both asking for money in a very aggressive way, and both times when I refused their request I was cursed at and on the second time I was spat at as well.
What an incredibly biased opinion piece from the WSR. CB7 has repeatedly ignored, silenced, and gaslighted this community. We are not NIMBY. The UWS has more than its share of shelters, and the 83rd block already has two others. We care about this neighborhood, and it has not recovered from covid or the Lucerne debacle. I am tired of seeing open drug use, nudity, petty crime, and in 2020 the arrival of drug dealers and prostitutes to 79th street. We must fight back and we must fight this additional shelter across from a playground.
The Lucerne was not a ‘debacle’.
This article is factual, and accurately states that the community board reflects the priorities of the majority of those of us who live here. The anti-Lucerne, anti-safe haven group has repeatedly run a candidate for various elected offices. That candidate gets about 15% of the vote. Not a majority of us.
Nail on the head. The WSR comments section seems to think 79th between bway & amsterdam was the Old Times Square circa 2020-21. It wasn’t, they’re often some of the loudest voices but as the votes have it, some of the loneliest. The West Side is still a progressive, mixed income, mixed race neighborhood. Some wouldn’t have it that way, and it shows.
Excellent explanation. Thank-you.
Yes, we need this Safe Haven. Thank-you for the detailed explanation.
Why do “we” need this in our neighborhood? We do not need ANY MORE SHELTERS, HALF-WAY HOUSES, ETC. ETC.
UWS Progressive? We rejected Sanders and Warren in 2016 and voted centrist in the mayoral race. The problem is that most of us do not vote in primaries allowing them to be dominated by activists. It is rare for any of our city officials to have won a majority of even the registered voters. We are also lucky that most of the R candidates are certifiably nuts, otherwise we would have a Republican governor and more Rs in city government.
More R’s in government is the only thing that will save NYC from complete collapse at this point.
Love your comment!!!!
The distinction between “Safe Haven” and “homeless shelter” is largely no more than just academic. I don’t think those who oppose it would be convinced by the fact that “clients are escorted through the door”, which again, is just a formality.
So, after this Safe Haven opens, if I see a single homeless person on the streets of the UWS, who do I get my tax money back from? Since this is the superior solution to all problems with the “regular” shelters, lack of mental care, access to housing, etc., – and will be used for the homeless in the neighborhood first – I will expect the results to match the claims and the executive salaries at this “non-profit.”
Could not agree more, Peter. If we are “required” to provide shelter, why aren’t those sleeping on the streets required to use them? Until that happens, I think this “requirement” to provide shelter is ridiculous and a complete waste of money.
Bravo!
You are using a bunch of bureaucratic Orwellian language and splitting hairs to differentiate between “homeless shelter” and “transitional facility” and “safe haven”.
Unfortunately, homelessness is big business in NYC. The CEO of Breaking Ground, the “not for profit” organization that will be operating this shelter, earns close to $500K annually. Therefore, she has a vested personal interest in opening these facilities all over the city as this leads to more funding and contributions and a larger salary for her.
It’s very easy to be “progressive” until issues hit you personally. Even long time UWS liberals don’t want a homeless shelter near their apartments.
Exactly. As Mike Tyson said, everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. I would prefer not to get punched in the mouth, or, better yet, not to have my children punched in the mouth.
I live on the UWS because I love economic, racial, and all other types of diversity. But I also like to be safe. Unfortunately, when it comes to diversity, we have more than our fair share of a) shelters, and b) super woke progressive do-gooders.
That Mike Tyson quote is one of my favorites! Who ever thought a boxer would coin such a practical expression?
How much do you think the CEO of this organization should make? Or should she simply volunteer?
I would say if you choose a nonprofit career path, you should expect lower pay. (you receive psychic benefits and usually fewer hours than the for profit sector.)I would expect her compensation to be 50% of what she currently receives.
She makes nearly $500k for 12 hours of work a week, according to the group’s filings. That’s about $750.00 an hour. That strikes me as grossly excessive.
Imagine or rather re-imagine how many truly vulnerable people she could be helping if she used her salary to pay for someone’s rent for the month? Be the change….
This article is very troubling, for it doesn’t at all address the concerns that many women have about their safety and their right to exist in this neighborhood unmolested. Advocates for adding 108 homeless people to the neighborhood cannot win by pretending the questions of those who oppose are baseless. Please engage meaningfully on our actual concerns. No one disagrees that it is sad and unsafe and dangerous for people to live outside. However, what we are balking against is sacrificing the safety of all people, but especially women, children, and the elderly. Can we actually wrestle with the real contradiction here? How do we balance empathy toward one group (the homeless) with empathy toward another (the people who live in this neighborhood)? What promises is this so-called safe haven making to women to protect them from rapists or predators? What about the elderly, who should be able to enjoy walking in their neighborhood without fear of harm?
^^^Agree with several of the posts above. I too, have previously posted regarding this matter and was censored by the paper. However, I can’t help but once again reiterate that homelessness is just one variable of the paradigm under consideration. And, I have empathy for anyone who is situated in such a spot and desires to get off the street and get their life back on track.
But? What is being proposed is “engaging” homeless individuals——-more like snatching them off the street——-in efforts to compile statistics to demonstrate a need to justify this hideous plan comprised of schizophrenic individuals who need more than three hots and a cot.
It will just be in a matter of TIME in which this undocumented social experiment implodes as a direct result of staffing one psychiatrist for 80-100 people…that is simply untenable. The ratio in a hospital or residential setting is at most 7:1 or 8:1…. 10:1 is the largest number a psychiatrist feels safe to adequately treat this cohort and do more than simply baby sit.
So, in essence, this population is going to simply engage in talk therapy? Let me know how that works out. Years ago, when a multidisciplinary team tried to offer an array of treatments to this population? Staff were spit on, shoved, scratched and made to scramble away from men trying to urinate in public. I hope Safe Haven or whatever name the shelter with low barriers is called is a huge success! By that I mean, I hope the local residents and our children will be shielded from repugnant behaviors. Yeah. Shielded. Parents can talk about the teachable moment until some one spits at their kid or friend of their kid! It’s not NIMBY….. it’s simply living in a community that you want to feel safe. I’m entitled to that as a tax paying American citizen living on the UWS or anywhere else in this country. I did NOT vote for this decision that was made with a lack of transparency and is being rammed through with a thirty day deadline.
And the kids from the Center School are allowed to leave the school at lunch time and are on 83rd Street going back and forth getting lunch. Will this shelter make sure that there are no interactions with these kids then or at arrival and dismissal? And then there is the kindergarten playground that abuts the sidewalk on 83rd Street. Great view of the shelter and the sidewalks and streets.
We will see if this gets through. There is a heavy hand on these comments.
Heavy hand? Pure censorship. An accurate portrayal of what happened/that reflected the reality (re: Lucerne) as we experienced it (@ 79 & B’way) was completely removed/rejected. Mentioned in my unseen commentary… the cherry 🍒 on my sundae was coming home to someone doin’ a dukie at my front door.
Feels like that all over again when your voice is silenced 🔇.
No, we did not vote for Sheldon Fine, who’s been at the CB7 since the 1980s! He is the person pushing for a shelter while ignoring the vast majority of UWSiders who have had enough as our district is overly served of homeless shelters and the biome that accompanies them
According to public info some CB7 board members live at least 20 blocks away from this location..
Makes sense they would recommend a shelter on 83rd street.
Our neighborhood is liberal and progressive – we want to help everyone have a home, a stable life, people to love and care about them. Because we feel this way, we have been YIMBY’s for decades and have been accepting more than other neighborhoods & boroughs. What is lacking now is Common Sense. There are too many shelters/supportive housing in this small area and we can’t handle it safely any longer. Your small local stores are suffering from the excessive mentally ill, drug users & aggressive individuals. We can’t get enough people to walk by and shop. We are still struggling from the pandemic effects & having people not feel safe to walk on Broadway after dark – something I hear all the time is hurting us more.
We have to insist on no more shelters/supportive housing until the other neighborhoods truly do their equal share. We all know there are not 108 individuals from our neighborhood going into this Safe Haven (double what was supposed to be in the first place) – they will be coming from other neighborhoods and the unfortunate troubles they have will come with them. If local businesses leave because of the lack of customers, there go the tax dollars to support these shelters. Let’s support the shelters we already have now & make them better first.
And given what is often a Nomadic personality of many street homeless. This shelter will lure newcomers who will set up shop on our streets. Or at least sent by social services. Who wouldn’t want to live in a neighborhood where generous neighbors often hand out spare dollars to support lifestyle choices? Build it and they will come. The playground will soon be a drug zone like what they are experiencing in Harlem by the Injection sites.
It’s interesting that you mention Broadway. I took a taxi south on Broadway recently about 11 pm from the Columbia Univ. area and couldn’t believe how dead the avenue it was–gad, remember the old days of restaurants and bars (the famous Teachers)? And all-night diners. Yes, Covid has destroyed a lot of this night-life but also crime and the fear it creates.
WSR – thanks for the discussion.
While I agree that the neighborhood is generally liberal-progressive, but not sure it is completely accurate to categorize as “you get what you vote for”?
It is my impression that most local elected officials campaigned on broad topics like safeguarding abortion, protecting tenants, access to Trump’s tax returns.
However, once in office, they seem to feel entitled to focus on the stuff that interests them – and never survey constituents’ opinion about new issues. And ignore constituents who voice opinions. This seems especially true about land use issues. Kind of like Republicans LOL.
Have mostly lost faith in local elected officials and CB 7.
“However, once in office, they seem to feel entitled to focus on the stuff that interests them – and never survey constituents’ opinion about new issues. And ignore constituents who voice opinions.“
Absolutely true, 100%.
Get the popcorn ready then for tomorrow night and watch our biker lobbyists who have served on CB7 forever, and continue to be reappointed, have their moment in the sun. They are rehearsing as we speak. Dare a resident have the audacity to question the validity of a bike vis a vis the havoc they currently create.
We continue to live with the effects of the Lucerne, Belleclaire etc. The establishment of these hotels as shelters, and the resultant impact upon the neighborhood, triggered a flight of a large proportion of the tax base. This has altered the dynamics of the neighborhood , which is not the neighborhood it was in 2019. People can discuss compassion for people with catastrophic problems, but given the choice, many will choose quality of life, rather than subject themselves, and most importantly their children, to the witnessing of antisocial behavior.
I lived near Bellevue during my college years… far cry from a “safe haven” as there were always alarms going off for one incident or another.. but honestly, why house adjacent to a school when you know parents are concerned and riled up about having to worry about their children’s safety. It’s the chosen location that’s the most concerning.. living here for over 30 years, I’ve known when to sense danger, but do children know how to interact and respond when possibly confronted with an escalated situation of someone who may need medical assistance or guidance?
I’ll give you credit for the headline. You do get what you vote for. This neighborhood (UWS and the entire city, actually) has gone to hell in a handbasket thanks to liberal left “progressive” policies. No law and order. Police demonized. Shoplifting everywhere. EVERY street reeking of pot. The subways a killing ground. And, just for the record, I’ve live in NY all my life and on the UWS for decades. I’m also a registered “lifelong” Democrat. NO MORE. The party and its woke “progressives” have gone off the deep end into insanity. Oh, I’m sure I’ll get some condescending nasty liberal feedback. That’s typical and to be expected. But, there are a LOT of NYers who feel just like me. Trust me. Unfortunately, not enough. So, yes, you get what you vote for. If you voted for Adam, Hochel and the Dems, you’ve made your bed. Lie in it.
My Google dictionary, which cites “Oxford Languages” as its source, defines “vagrant” as a person without a settled home or regular work who wanders from place to place and lives by begging. The Oxfordians do not say that the word is archaic or antiquated. I’m not aware if they sometimes append definitions with a note saying that the word is “not PC”, but that has not happened here.
At the same time this writer asks us to accept that a facility that takes in homeless people who live outside in the streets, parks, and subways, is not a homeless shelter.
Some of the antiquated language may out of fashion, but it is still a bit easier to understand.