New York governor orders homeless off streets in freezing weather
Source: Yahoo! News / Reuters
(Reuters) - New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed an executive order on Sunday requiring local officials throughout the state to force the homeless into shelters when temperatures dip below freezing, and vowed to defend the edict if challenged in court.
The order, which goes into effect on Tuesday, requires social service agencies and police to move homeless individuals into shelters, against their will if necessary, when the temperature is at or below 32 degrees Fahrenheit (O degrees Celsius).
"Our state, which has a beautiful tradition of social progress and community, should not leave anyone outside in freezing temperatures. That’s called basic humanity," Cuomo said during an interview on New York City news channel NY1.
New York and other big U.S. cities have long wrestled with the dilemma of dealing with homeless people who refuse to be taken to shelters, even in the most bitter cold. Many of them fear falling victim to crime in the shelters.
Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/york-governor-orders-homeless-off-streets-freezing-weather-004200034.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
tabasco
(22,974 posts)Many homeless, equipped to deal with the cold, might resist, but it's a good idea.
reddread
(6,896 posts)I suspect it sounds better to you than those who know that sick people with drug and chemical issues, violence, theft and rape are waiting within.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)won't allow them to bring in their pets.
I would not abandon my pets even if ordered to a shelter.
Chemisse
(30,814 posts)Unless they declared them unfit to make that kind of decision for themselves. But then they'd actually have to take care of them!
johnnypanic42
(14 posts)And then kicks them out of shelters because people say they'll attract criminal activity, you can't have your neighborhood full of the "wrong kind of people", what will people think!
and now we're supposed to believe Cuomo suddenly cares about the homeless? To me, forcing them into shelters whether or not they want to, whether or not they'll be in danger of violence, sounds like just another tactic to remove "eyesores" from the public eye. Sounds like people trying to "DEAL" with homelessness instead of reaching out to the people themselves with compassion.
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)Bernin
(311 posts)sound legal at all.
eggplant
(3,912 posts)This is basically a "you can't just be on the street when the weather will kill you" curfew.
imprisoning anyone without due process is not legal.
Chemisse
(30,814 posts)Doesn't seem legal. So you or I could walk along at 20 below zero - because we have homes to go to - but they can't - because they're homeless.
trillion
(1,859 posts)
jfern
(5,204 posts)And homeless shelters generally don't allow pets or alcohol, so how would that work? Another idiotic idea from an idiotic governor.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)Good point.
christx30
(6,241 posts)wants to leave? What about 50? And what happens when they file a Habeas Corpus to force release? The governor still has to follow the law and the constitution.
brooklynite
(94,694 posts)...but neither are they allowed to stay (e.g. remain in a fixed position) on the sidewalk, in a public park, etc.
Bernin
(311 posts)says to force the homeless into shelters.
Sounds like kidnapping before you even get to the point of whether they are forced to stay.
christx30
(6,241 posts)rounded up, "against their will if necessary". That means people from the state come, put you in a van. If you resist, they put handcuffs on you. They take you to a place where you are not allowed to leave if the temp outside is too low.
So, again, what happens if Joe has a dog that he head to leave over on 5th street and 50 other people have other things going on and they just don't want to stay?
Cops will already hassle homeless people. "You can't sleep here."
There's nothing new with that. This is a new thing Cuomo is doing. It's probably not legal. I look forward to seeing how it's shut down.
Offering help to people and making resources available is a good thing. Force is not.
brooklynite
(94,694 posts)...they're picking up people camped out somewhere. Not being in motion is the key element.
reddread
(6,896 posts)so much love for the downtrodden, warms cockles.
brooklynite
(94,694 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)which could bring us back to choices in the primary..
as far as warming shelters for homeless, I am already clearly on the record there.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)in the snow, to get a truck full of firewood. We both took sleeping bags, and I brought a small tent that we shared. My bag was designed to handle temps to 10 below freezing. I don't think her bag was...she brought some foil wrap that was supposed to reflect her body heat back to her, but it had us cracking up for some time because it crackled every time she moved. It didn't work too well at keeping her warm. It got down to about 10 below that night. We both woke up cold, but certainly not freezing. And it was not a life-threatening situation. Should that have been illegal for us to do? What about mountain climbers who sleep on the wall in blizzards? Should winter camping or sports be illegal?
Some homeless people have been on the streets long enough that they have a system to protect themselves from extreme conditions. Unfortunately, being forced into a shelter means leaving all their big belongings behind (along with pets and addictions), and after a night inside they may find themselves in dire circumstances the next time they sleep outside It is not comfortable, or safe to sleep outside without proper protection when it is 35°, but that won't require them to be shuttled to a shelter. So one night they have their stuff stolen while they are locked in a shelter, and the next night they might even die of the cold.
I don't know what is up with this move, but it is not in the best interest of the homeless. It's been addressed many times on this site what needs to be done. They need secure housing (not shared) where they can lock up their stuff, and keep their pets, and even their addictions if necessary.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)A tent by itself will keep you about 20 degree Fahrenheit warmer then without one. A heavy duty sleeping bag will keep warm to at least 40 degrees (both Fahrenheit and Celsius, that is the point where both meet). My father as a GI doing WWII slept with two wool blankets wrapped in a shelter half during his training in winter in both the US and Britain (from 1942 till late 1943 his was the only US infantry division in Britain). When it hit below zero when I was doing my two weeks active duty in Fort Indiantown Gap, I was comfortable in my sleeping bag.
Now I had a thick mat under my sleeping bag, the army issued Vietnam war era inflatable matt would not hold air so I broke down an bought a two inch matt. You lose most of the heat from your body to the cold ground, thus a thick matt is often more important than a blanket or sleeping bag. One drill weekend when we went to the field, a pal of mine ask to borrow my heavy duty black army sweater for he was freezing sleeping In the bed of his truck. The next day I saw why, he had no matt, thus lying on the steel bed with the cold air flowing under that bed drawing the heat from his body via the crushed part of his sleeping bag, crushed by his own body.
My father had been trained to make sure he had grass or other plant material below his shelter half when he slept in cold weather. That is how you stay warm while sleeping. Today, the Army are issuing closed cell form mats of about a half inch thick. It is more important than the sleeping bag soldiers are issued when it comes to staying warm in cold weather.
Please note in the Johnstown PA area we have had zero degree temperatures the last few days but little snow. That is typical of any front coming from Canada or Ohio. We get our heavy snows from Texas or the gulf stream. The East coast gets its heavy snows from North-easterners that are based on the Gulf Stream. Pittsburgh gets its heavy snows on warm fronts from Texas that go up the Ohio River Valley. North-easterners do hit Johnstown bu the mountains tend to keep them to the east coast. Ohio valley storms tend to lose all of their power as they drop snow to get over the Appalachian Mountains, so the East Coast gets little snow from such a storm. We in the mountains tend to get hit by both.
I bring up heavy snow for this is a severe cold and cold air carries little moisture. That being the case we end up with light fluffy snow, what the locals refer to as a "Cold snow". Out west it is called a "powder snow". We tend to get Cold Snow all winter long, but rarely more then a half a inch per day (mostly less quarter of an inch or less is more the norm).
On the other hand when we get dump it tends to be a "wet snow", something around freezing that is perfect for snowballs.
Thus, given the temperatures there is little need for protection from rain or wet snow. Wet weather gear is NOT needed. You do need such gear in a wet snow, for wet snow quickly melts and leaves you wet and cold.
Just a comment that what many of the homeless need is first a permanent home, if that can not be arranged a mat and tent may be a better choice then into a crowded shelter.
Please note Utah has adopted a "permanent home first" policy, I.e. Get the homeless into some form of permanent housing then worry about saving them from the cold. It is the first in the nation and appears to be working, unlike the shelter programs the other 49 states are using to address homelessness.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2015/04/17/the-surprisingly-simple-way-utah-solved-chronic-homelessness-and-saved-millions/?tid=pm_local_pop_b
And this has been reported since April 2014:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-answer-to-homelessness/
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)a thick matt is often more important than a blanket or sleeping bag
the homeless have been very good at gathering cardboard, which insulates, and layers of that under you (if dry) works well to prevent ground cold seep.
what many of the homeless need is first a permanent home, if that can not be arranged a mat and tent may be a better choice then into a crowded shelter.
Again, I agree. What do you get for one night in a shelter? Protection from the cold, but not much else. What do you get with a pup tent and a foam pad and a good sleeping bag? The ability to sleep safe and fairly warm all winter. This especially works well for homeless who have a guard dog to keep people from try to raid the tent and take their stuff.
Dogs serve more than one purpose. Companions, and guard dogs. I would not be homeless without one.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)This is what Utah has found to be the reason the homeless stay homeless, they lack the social contacts to get into housing. Once into housing, the former homeless person then can form social contacts to avoid most of the problems related to being homeless. Thus to end homelessness you need to get the homeless person into a home FIRST, then address the reason he or she became homeless.
Most Social Welfare system do NOT do that, instead they want to solve the reason someone is homeless, then the homelessness. If it is drug related, get the homeless person into drug rehab, then into a home.
Utah has found the better solution is to get the homeless person into a home, then address the reason they are homeless. i.e do NOT do drug rehab before housing, housing before drug rehab.
The Department of Labor has found 92% of all employees find employment via friends and relatives. Friends and relatives do NOT hire the unemployed, but friends and relatives tell unemployed friends and relatives of jobs they find out about that the unemployed friend or relative could do and then tell that friend and relative about that job.
Homeless people lose contacts with relatives and quickly lose what if any friends they have. In olden days (and in rural American they still perform this function) Churches would be where people would meet and talk about those member of the community that needed help. In today's urban society, we just do not have that same community center except in the form of the Government. Thus the Government MUST assume this function that churches use to perform. One of those functions is to provide housing to the homeless, even if the homeless is a drug addict.
The Utah plan says anyone it helps must pay 30% of their income as rent. This is the same percentage the Federal Government says people living in Public housing must pay but the Federal Government has adopted a policy that people evicted from public housing can NOT return to public housing, even if that means they become homeless. The Utah plan avoids that problem by saying it will help even people who owe public housing money. Instead of just collecting rent like Public Housing Agencies, Utah assigns a case worker to the former homeless person. THE caseworker makes sure the person has food, pays the rent and utilities, known how to use public transportation (and even provide transportation if needed). They check up on the former homeless person every week or so to see how the former homeless person is surviving. They talk and discuss the home, the neighborhood and any neighborhood meeting that is occurring. The caseworker talk about any help the former homeless person needs, but going to such help is strictly up to the former homeless person, NOT going to drug rehab, when it is needed, is NOT grounds to be kicked out of the system.
The System seems to be working. While Utah is the first state to adopt such a program, the actual program started in New York City, but by a private group who wanted to fight homelessness. They adopted the above system and found that it works. Utah adopted it a couple of years ago and while it is costing more today, they already seeing it saving them money over the next few years as they chart the pattern of expense of this program and what other homeless people NOT in such a program are costing them. The New York City Program saw similar cuts in costs (but the costs were saved by the State and City of New York, both of whom kept the savings for themselves instead of turning it over to the program that produced the savings for the later was NEVER funded by them thus not an expense of either the City or State of New York).
Thus the real solution to the issue of homelessness is to provide a home for such homeless people. This is NOT a cheap solution, but it is cheaper in the long term then providing shelters.
trillion
(1,859 posts)right? You can bet these people are allowed to leave in the morning. I know someone who got drunk and froze to death on her lawn because she was too drunk to get her key in the door. The point is, if they're outside in subfreezing temps and they want to lie down and sleep, arrest them. Liberty comes with responsibility.
reddread
(6,896 posts)not many need to be told to do it.
Cuomo is up to something else.
otherwise the order would be for more warming center funding.
the colder parts of the nation probably exhibit less leeway there, but
around here the pseudo religious power whores shut down the warming centers
until too many frozen corpses appear.
then the next day they reopen as if nothing untoward occurred.
after which they throw out the desperate participants around 5 AM the coldest part of the night.
840high
(17,196 posts)implement this? Drive every street and force them?
Proserpina
(2,352 posts)is to build small apartments and GIVE them to people. It works, it gives people a home and dignity. With a roof overhead, these lowest of the economic ladder can start to stabilize their health, their status, and their lives.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/22/home-free
n 2005, Utah set out to fix a problem that’s often thought of as unfixable: chronic homelessness. The state had almost two thousand chronically homeless people. Most of them had mental-health or substance-abuse issues, or both. At the time, the standard approach was to try to make homeless people “housing ready”: first, you got people into shelters or halfway houses and put them into treatment; only when they made progress could they get a chance at permanent housing. Utah, though, embraced a different strategy, called Housing First: it started by just giving the homeless homes.
Handing mentally ill substance abusers the keys to a new place may sound like an example of wasteful government spending. But it turned out to be the opposite: over time, Housing First has saved the government money. Homeless people are not cheap to take care of. The cost of shelters, emergency-room visits, ambulances, police, and so on quickly piles up. Lloyd Pendleton, the director of Utah’s Homeless Task Force, told me of one individual whose care one year cost nearly a million dollars, and said that, with the traditional approach, the average chronically homeless person used to cost Salt Lake City more than twenty thousand dollars a year. Putting someone into permanent housing costs the state just eight thousand dollars, and that’s after you include the cost of the case managers who work with the formerly homeless to help them adjust. The same is true elsewhere. A Colorado study found that the average homeless person cost the state forty-three thousand dollars a year, while housing that person would cost just seventeen thousand dollars.
Housing First isn’t just cost-effective. It’s more effective, period. The old model assumed that before you could put people into permanent homes you had to deal with their underlying issues—get them to stop drinking, take their medication, and so on. Otherwise, it was thought, they’d end up back on the streets. But it’s ridiculously hard to get people to make such changes while they’re living in a shelter or on the street. “If you move people into permanent supportive housing first, and then give them help, it seems to work better,” Nan Roman, the president and C.E.O. of the National Alliance for Homelessness, told me. “It’s intuitive, in a way. People do better when they have stability.” Utah’s first pilot program placed seventeen people in homes scattered around Salt Lake City, and after twenty-two months not one of them was back on the streets. In the years since, the number of Utah’s chronically homeless has fallen by seventy-four per cent.
Of course, the chronically homeless are only a small percentage of the total homeless population. Most homeless people are victims of economic circumstances or of a troubled family environment, and are homeless for shorter stretches of time. The challenge, particularly when it comes to families with children, is insuring that people don’t get trapped in the system. And here, too, the same principles have been used, in an approach called Rapid Rehousing: the approach is to quickly put families into homes of their own, rather than keep them in shelters or transitional housing while they get housing-ready. The economic benefits of keeping people from getting swallowed by the shelter system can be immense: a recent Georgia study found that a person who stayed in an emergency shelter or transitional housing was five times as likely as someone who received rapid rehousing to become homeless again.
It may seem surprising that a solidly conservative state like Utah has embraced an apparently bleeding-heart approach like giving homeless people homes. But in fact Housing First has become the rule in hundreds of cities around the country, in states both red and blue. And while the Obama Administration has put a lot of weight (and money) behind these efforts, the original impetus for them on a national scale came from the Bush Administration’s homelessness czar Philip Mangano. Indeed, the fight against homelessness has genuine bipartisan support. As Pendleton says, “People are willing to pay for this, because they can look at it and see that there are actually solutions. They can say, ‘Ah, it works.’ ” And it saves money.
more
Joe Shlabotnik
(5,604 posts)People need a place to go, with their stuff, with their pets, with their addictions... it doesn't matter. A roof over every head should be a constitutional right (as should be an income, healthy and enough food, and clean water, and clean air, and health care)
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)
reddread
(6,896 posts)you might want to differentiate between the housing first programs that have shown the efficacy,
and the federally funded Housing First projects that expend 11 million or more dollars erecting single occupancy
prisons for people who need shelter so much they dont mind the sacrifice of freedom or the fact that 99 and some large fraction of the last percent of homeless people who are not veterans will still be on the streets because say 69 units doesnt go very far with one person per...
connected scumbags are making money off these programs while denying opportunities to the rest of the population.
go price some large apartments, forclosures or not, the taxpayer could be much better served but for the schemes being carried out under the new improved rubric of Housing First tm.
sorry, things are not as rosey as these feel good PR pieces paint them.
not at all.
but the money is sweet for those who find the teat.
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)How to solve the homelessness problem in one quick decisive move. Why didn't anybody else think of that?
Egnever
(21,506 posts)
trillion
(1,859 posts)all together. insane shelter demands, having to sleep next to crazies who steal their stuff, etc. however I am for making them go on freezing nights.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Is to provoke a violent confrontation so that the homeless may be arrested or simply executed.
christx30
(6,241 posts)You got it right there. Give the police more power to go after certain groups. Great way of seeing those groups reduced in population.
Bernin
(311 posts)Niemoller ~2016
Hekate
(90,773 posts)
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)The same accusation was made about me when I said that BushCo was lying about NBC weapons in Iraq in order to justify an invasion, that the Patriot Act would lead to spying on Americans and torturing prisoners, and that drones would eventually be used to assassinate American citizens.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)He's doing it so they don't freeze. People get listless when they're cold and combine that with other problems and it seems reasonable to require that they be escorted to shelters. Just did a jury, 3-4 leave it, but what possessed you to make such an unsupported claim?
Bernin
(311 posts)You're starting to see how those running the show;
run the show.
Welcome to the show.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)There's a difference.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)And if he DOES care, why would he use the police to help them, an organization which has a very poor reputation for rational handling of the mentally ill and who are deeply distrusted by the large segments of the public?
This is like claiming you care about trees, and you intend to burn them down with a flamethrower so nothing happens to them.
brooklynite
(94,694 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)If he is, he's a fool to trust the NYPD to behave responsibly.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)I have no doubt that is the very purpose behind this.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)Build safe, secure places for people to spend the night and they won't need to be forced.
brooklynite
(94,694 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)No need for crowding in unsafe shelters.
brooklynite
(94,694 posts)It MIGHT be a strategy for a FUTURE cold snap if arrangements have been made; it's not a solution for the immediate need.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Why should they be forced open?
Oh...because churches often choose not to help the needy, but instead, pander to the monied.
But, you probably know all about that...thus your comment about "forcing" them open.
brooklynite
(94,694 posts)I'm also an atheist and have no dealings with churches at all.
That said, most of the churches here in the City aren't the megachurches you're perhaps thinking of; they're small, with limited finances. Maybe they can accommodate the homeless; maybe they can't. In the meantime, while someone finds out, I'm not averse to moving people without shelter out of life-threatening conditions.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)as long as it's not done by force. Offer them a safe place to shelter from the cold, without causing them to lose everything they have, and most people would take it willingly. But force them to do it, or put too many restrictions or rules in place and you might as well put them in jail.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Churches when filled with people tend to warm up do to the number of people attending mass (Malls have the same problem, thus Malls run Air Conditioning even in winter to cool down the interior do to the number of humans in the Mall creating to much heat). Thus churches are often warm enough for mass or other active functions, but when it comes to sleeping that is another story all together.
Most churches have high ceilings, for in olden days that was the best way to cool the place down in summer. Heat rises if it has a place to rise to. In Winter, heat can be provided by the bodies of the mass attendees, thus heat tends NOT to be a problem for mass. Once Mass is over, people leave and the church becomes a huge unheated empty barn. If it has restrooms, they are in the basement with what limited heating in provided to the building. Thus Churches are great for Mass, for public meetings and other active activities, but like most barns NOT DESIGN FOR PEOPLE TO SLEEP IN, especially in cold weather.
Thus most churches provide other housing, or money to pay for other housing, or clothing to deal with the cold instead of housing people in an open and empty barn.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)Goog luck with that,it's obviously unconstitutional.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)to strike down this law?
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)Will it be the police or a special task force? Since when is it the police's duty to go around and gather the homeless left out in the cold? I've never been in a shelter but I have fears of scabies and lice. You probably may be exposed to TB. How about setting up showers and new clothing, as well as clinicians to check for health problems. Oh what the hell am I thinking, that would cost tax payer money. I was also thinking we send people to the empty Trump Tower and let them get warm there.
reddread
(6,896 posts)but it wasnt for getting the homeless into shelter.
it was for chasing them around after shutting down some of the largest shantytowns you ever saw in America.
Housing being one of the major industries here, low income housing seems to be regularly demolished and
slowly replaced by much less of the same.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Sounds like Fresno hasn't changed much, but NY isn't Fresno.
reddread
(6,896 posts)so they said.
brooklynite
(94,694 posts)SPECIAL WEATHER STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE NEW YORK NY
315 PM EST MON JAN 4 2016
NEW YORK (MANHATTAN)-BRONX-RICHMOND (STATEN ISLAND)-
KINGS (BROOKLYN)-NORTHERN QUEENS-SOUTHERN QUEENS-
315 PM EST MON JAN 4 2016
...COLDEST NIGHT OF THE SEASON EXPECTED...
THE COMBINATION OF STRONG NORTHERLY WINDS AND PLUNGING
TEMPERATURES TONIGHT WILL RESULT IN WIND CHILL VALUES NEAR ZERO.
THESE BITTERLY COLD WIND CHILL READINGS WILL OCCUR AFTER MIDNIGHT
TONIGHT AND WILL LAST THROUGH EARLY TUESDAY MORNING.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)To take in the people who would cause overcrowding in regular shelters, and maybe even allow homeless with pets to come in. And they can bring their stuff.
There are so many churches...like one or two every couple of blocks in most cities. It seems like they could help a lot, without crowding or causing unsafe conditions. They could have a few people assigned to make sure nothing happens (like violence). I know if I ran a church I'd be doing that even without some law forcing these people off the streets.
In my small rural town we don't have a homeless shelter (that I'm aware of) but the churches do rotate being open to the few homeless we have here. Maybe not in summer, but they do in winter. It's been in the low 20's and high teens here for a couple of weeks.
It's been well below freezing here for weeks, and I am indoors and freezing my ass off. I sincerely feel for the homeless and want this country to find some real solutions to eliminate most if not all of our homeless. Even if they are jobless and without any kind of funds, they need a place to live, and we have let them down.
But in the meantime, churches could help a lot. Even school gyms could be used in areas where there are a lot of homeless...they could lay out the exercise mats for them to sleep on.
Why would these homeless not go to a shelter in such cold weather if they could? You need to find out why and fix that problem before you start forcing them against their will.
But then authoritarians like to keep things neat and tidy and many people are authoritarians, even while they claim to be humanitarians.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)And I have seen some fundamentalists churches open they doors but most churches are huge barns NOT set up for people sleeping. They are set up for people gathering, but not for sleeping. Most Churches try to get the homeless some sort of housing instead for then the homeless person has access to a bath or shower and often a washing machine.
Last Winter I saw a sign on my local Presbyterian church, they would have mass in the basement, the church itself was to cold. To cold for mass, it is to cold as a place to shelter someone.
One problem is most churches have found out they need someone to be on hand to handle disputes between people going into the shelter and have a problem finding enough volunteers:
https://shelteringchurches.wordpress.com/
http://www.frontsteps.org/what-we-do/arch/shelter/
Most Churches work with other churches in this regard:
http://www.firstpreshc.org/category/serve/cold-weather-shelter
In my area, providing shelter is done by the Salvation Army working with other Churches. Most churches provide money to help someone find and move into housing rather then provide a shelter themselves (a variation of the program to provide housing FIRST policy which seems to be the most effective policy when it comes to homelessness).
reddread
(6,896 posts)Another aspect to bear in mind- at least locally, when police would assist people into warming centers,
they allegedly ran them through their records looking for warrants etc.
That sort of behavior discourages some. Nobody should freeze to death outdoors in a city.
