"Every other candidate spoke of homelessness as a disaster for the homeless. Yang discussed it as a quality of life problem for everyone else. 'Yes, mentally ill people have rights, but you know who else have rights?' he asked. 'We do: the people and families of the city.' For Yang, I suspect, a successful mayoralty would mean restoring Michael Bloomberg’s New York, an extremely safe, pleasant place for tourists and well-off families like mine, but one where many poorer people were financially squeezed and strictly policed. Even if Yang could, as a political novice, stand up to the N.Y.P.D., he’d have little reason to, since his remit would be safety at almost any cost."
Writes Michelle Goldberg in "Eric Adams Is Awful. I’m Putting Him on My Ballot" (NYT).
The passage I've quoted gets very strong pushback in the comments at the NYT. I'll just quote one:
The big piece of evidence Michelle Goldberg uses against Yang is an answer to the homeless crisis that I happen to agree with, and I'm a liberal Democrat. Of course, the homeless need to have workable options of where to go. But progressives are just wrong to defend the rights of the "unhoused" against anybody who would dare challenge their apparent belief that they can set up camp on any square of sidewalk that they declare to be their own. I can't be the only non-conservative person in America who would like to stop the trashing of our public spaces. I mean, is that really the worst you can say about Andrew Yang? Seriously?
पोस्ट्स
१३ टिप्पण्या:
Washington Blogger writes:
Your post on the homeless got me to thinking about conflicting interests which got me to thinking about why the homeless are such a nuisance and why it is such a challenge to deal with them, which got me thinking about Kris Kristofferson's song, Me and Bobby McGee, which in turn got me to thinking about how civil society functions, leading to why people with something to lose are more likely to be compliant. (This leads to a possible underlying factor on a whole host of issues discussed on the Althouse blog.) If a city's policies remove any incentive (or conversely dis-incentive) for a homeless person to act differently, the homeless have no real reason to act in a civil manner. It's not that I am saying they live an evil and vile existice (anagrams!) But by the very fact they are living on the margins suggests that they do not generally adhere to normal societal incentives. For many of them, they really do have nothing left to lose and so they live a form of freedom in the streets of whatever city they now call home. To deal with them one must discover what they do have to lose, or create something for them that they would not want to lose that is more valuable than the freedom that they have now. Rhode Island has a great program of rehabilitation that seems to be doing just that. Maybe Yang is just talking about the dis-incentive, but it seems most liberals want to remove any question of incentive from the discussion. However, many people, as evidenced by the comment you cited, are starting to see the loss they are experiencing.
MikeR writes:
"It was Yang’s answers on homelessness and mental health at the final debate that finally settled it for me."
Fascinating. Settled it for me, too. A candidate willing to consider both sides of a question! Exactly what Goldberg finds unacceptable.
Tom writes:
“The big piece of evidence Michelle Goldberg uses against Yang is an answer to the homeless crisis that I happen to agree with, and I'm a liberal Democrat. Of course, the homeless need to have workable options of where to go. But progressives are just wrong to defend the rights of the "unhoused" against anybody who would dare challenge their apparent belief that they can set up camp on any square of sidewalk that they declare to be their own. I can't be the only non-conservative person in America who would like to stop the trashing of our public spaces. I mean, is that really the worst you can say about Andrew Yang? Seriously?”
Imagine having a perfectly reasonable thought like this and then being constantly called a white supremest, racist, bigot. That’s what it’s like to be a conservative or libertarian. I hope this person doesn’t get canceled but I’m guessing if their name gets attached to the quote, they’re toast.
Ken writes:
"Does anyone believe her? Had he not been asked that if I for one think she'd have written the same column based on some other answer. Except of course an answer about reducing attacks on Asians; that she'd steer clear of."
Alex writes:
The thing about tough love is that it is still love. And cruelty doesn't have to be active. Sometimes, it need only be through inaction. Demanding that the homeless take advantage of the shelters provided by the city, that they get clean, that they try to build a life for themselves isn't cruelty, it's toughness driven by the belief that humans beings have inherent dignity and that living in perpetual misery, induced haze, and squalor is offensive to that dignity. It's also loving towards the other citizens of NYC, who don't want to live in fear of being harassed or attacked, who want to live in a clean, attractive city where businesses can thrive. Allowing the mentally ill to live on the streets, getting high in parks, defecating on sidewalks, harassing passers-by for money, etc., isn't kindness, it's cruelty. It's cruelty which is driven, I suspect, by bigotry, classism, and a desire to virtue-signal. The author yearns for an aesthetic, namely the gritty pre-Giuliani days of NYC because her wealth means she wouldn't bear the brunt of it. She might step over a panhandler to get into a taxi, or tut-tut another shooting mentioned on the evening news, but at the same time she'll brag about them to her friends living elsewhere, to make herself seem harder. Meanwhile, the poor, often minorities, living in dangerous neighborhoods plagued by gangs and homeless will be the ones who suffer the most.
Michael writes:
"... a successful mayoralty would mean restoring Michael Bloomberg’s New York, an extremely safe, pleasant place...
C'mom, Michelle. That's Rudy Giuliani's New York. Bloomberg just kept it alive for another 12 years until deBlasio wrecked it in less than four. I think Hell for Michelle Goldberg would be having to write "Rudy Giuliani saved New York" over and over on a blackboard, through all eternity.
Stephen writes:
"...Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, an ex-cop and former Republican who defends the use of stop-and-frisk, supports charter schools and is endorsed by Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post." [Also by the "Reverend" Al Sharpton.]
"...The contest between Adams and Yang has become less urgent as Maya Wiley and Kathryn Garcia, my top two choices, have surged and Yang has faded."
But Garcia is also on record for increasing support for charter schools. (She has also been endorsed by the NYT and the Daily News.)
So, what we have here is a serious case of progressive cognitive dissonance.
Prediction: Yang's recent polling numbers have dropped by more than 50%. He sees the handwriting on the wall. So, now he is campaigning with Kathryn Garcia and telling his supporters to vote for her as their second choice in NYC's new ranked-choice voting scheme.
If they do that, she will probably win.
MartyH writes: Perhaps Ms. Goldberg’s acquaintance with the homeless is more abstract than personal. Perhaps not. Mine is almost daily and I will share my observations.
I live in Sacramento, which has a large homeless population.
The American River Parkway is a bicycle path and greenbelt that starts at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers. It is wide and wooded, especially near the river’s junction. I have ridden my bike on this trail for over twenty years.
The first location I regularly see the homeless on the trail is around mile six and a half (measured from the junction.) I used to see the first tent around mile five and a half, but it is either gone or I do not notice it anymore. Below mile three is teeming with homeless; I regularly ride my bike to the end of the trail and so observe this firsthand.
Generally the homeless and I acknowledge each other and each go our way. I have only had one incident on the trail with a homeless person. He was on the trail facing me and it appeared he was not going to let me pass.
I am always wary of loose dogs, although have only had one aggressive dog encounter.
If I am going for a late ride, I go east, toward the suburbs, not west toward the city.
A bicyclist was stabbed to death several years ago along the trail around Mile 3 (IIRC) so there is a real threat.
Yesterday my son was meeting me near this area. He realized he went past the meeting spot and turned around. He came upon a small brush fire in an empty lot that he had driven by a few minutes earlier. A person was purposefully walking away from the fire and had probably set it.
The lot was adjacent to a house. My son called 911 and grabbed a hose from the house. A driver with a shovel in his truck stopped and helped. The two of them contained the fire until the FD arrived. (I got there at the same time as the FD so I saw the end of it.)
Portions of the greenbelt have burned this year, just as every other. Most fires are not deliberate and they endanger the homeless more than the general population or property.
Here’s a story about recent fires (I apologize for the autoplay):
Fires started in Sacramento homeless encampments burn 165 acres | abc10.com
Marty continues:
I live about a dozen miles up the bike trail in a nice neighborhood. Some homeless tried to set up camp in the neighborhood park two blocks away but the Sheriff shooed them off. I saw a homeless person trying to get into a neighbor’s backyard early one morning. She was a frail woman who came toward me and yelled for a few minutes before wandering off.
My son and I tried to watch a meteor shower at the river park about two miles from our house. The place was alive at 3AM. After half an hour it got too sketchy and we left.
My recyclables get ransacked every other week.
The episodes near my house are from the past few years as the homeless have become more common upriver.
I also regularly see homeless on my commute to and from work. There are no encampments along these roads but I know of several nearby-the homeless population is also expanding beyond the river.
Services are overwhelmed. We had an employee sleeping in his car on the company lot. I tried to find him transitional housing. It was hard to locate an appropriate service. Most were for recovery (not his problem.) The wait list on others was full.
To reduce homelessness, we first have to recognize it as a problem, which people like Ms. Goldberg apparently do not.
The next step would be to take the seemingly intractable problem and break it into smaller ones that can be addressed.
We must acknowledge that the homeless consist of overlapping groups- mentally ill; the unfortunate; drug addicted; criminals; maybe a few free spirits but I would guess that these eventually fall prey to one demon or another. Some should be institutionalized, others given a hand so that they can get back into society. Some should be in rehab, some in jail.
Robert writes:
Wired wrote about Andrew Yang: "He talks about breaking problems apart and finding solutions. He played D&D as a kid, read science fiction, and understands blockchain."
What Yang wants to know is where Eric Adams hides his NYC bathtub that he needs for his frequent bubble baths,
Meanwhile Maya Wiley wants to replace ill-prepared police with skilled mental professionals but Andrew redirects the question to "equal rights for all." I guess that means that the lost citizenry of New York that wander the main thoroughfares screaming at tall buildings have the same rights as the Andrew Yangs in the city. But Wiley has a bigger problem - "Sandy" Ortega-Cortez!
BothSidesNow writes:
Goldberg minimizes the reduction in crime and disorder on New York's streets during the Bloomberg era as "making New York better for tourists and well-off people." This debate has been going on for a long time. I moved to New York after college in 1979. In magazines like the Nation, and in the Village Voice, this was a common sentiment -- law and order was only about making life better for the more well-to-do. This was also a big message of the New York Civil Liberties Union. I taught school (eight grade) in a Catholic elementary school in a burned out section of the Bronx. All the students, or nearly all, qualified for free lunch. (In a lesson on WWII I showed the kids photos of streets in Berlin after the war, and I kid you not, they tried to identity where in the Bronx the pictures were taken.) I organized a field trip to one of the museums in Manhattan and asked for parents to attend to help me. No takers. I asked the class why. The answer? Mothers could not leave their apartments for the day, because if they did, the apartments would be broken into. It struck me that thousands of less well-of people were in effect under house arrest because New York, with the full approval of folks like Goldberg, refused to provide for safe streets or enforce a modicum of order. Goldberg's view is so easy to hold, and so wrong, so lacking in empathy for people who live in the poorer neighborhoods of New York who are most affected by crime and disorder.
RD writes:
Everyone is missing the BIG Question about the Homeless.
Would You treat a DOG like we treat the Hard Core Homeless?
Progressives claim to be oh so caring, kind and understanding. Where is their basic decency? They treat the long time homeless as nameless faceless items to be abandoned, maybe paid off and otherwise ignored, when they are not using them as a cudgel to beat on those like Andrew Yang that actually want to help the homeless solve their root problems. Giving them a mini home, or a basic income, or three hots and a cot in a shelter alone are NOT going to solve the problems of the hardcore homeless. They will not get better until the mentally insane get the treatment they need, and they are convinced, cajoled, or commanded to keep following their treatment. The Alcoholics and Drug Addicts will not heal themselves until they end or at least control their addictions.
All the while, they steal to feed their addictions, literally shit on the public, and the worst are attacking not only the general public, but more often attacking and abusing their fellow homeless. They destroy our parks and public spaces, create crime, littering and property destruction.
When they are caught committing crimes, do the blue city progressives do anything to get them off the streets and into treatment? No, they are released without bail to go out and commit the same crimes, and escalate to worse crimes. When there are no consequences, do you think they become less violent or more violent?
Andrew Yang has it right. Treat the Homeless as Human Beings Deserving Respect, and get them the help they really need to get them healthy and off the streets.
At the very least, Treat the Homeless as well as you would treat a stray dog.
R.T. O'Dactyl writes:
Marty wrote: "We must acknowledge that the homeless consist of overlapping groups -- mentally ill; the unfortunate; drug addicted; criminals; maybe a few free spirits but I would guess that these eventually fall prey to one demon or another. Some should be institutionalized, others given a hand so that they can get back into society. Some should be in rehab, some in jail."
Seconded! I wish more people would acknowledge this, or at least be aware of it. The biggest roadblock to dealing with the problems of homeless people -- and the problems that ordinary people have with them -- is the phrase "THE homeless." There is no "one size fits all" solution, yet too many people pretend that there is.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा