The foundation of the new policy is that New York state will be able to authorize first responders to forcibly hospitalize mentally ill New Yorkers who cannot meet their own basic needs such as food, shelter or medical care.
The foundation of the new policy is that New York state will be able to authorize first responders to forcibly hospitalize mentally ill New Yorkers who cannot meet their own basic needs such as food, shelter or medical care.
Vacant does not mean government owned. Homeowners can do whatever they want with their homes, including leaving them vacant. So again, what free housing would be used to house all these people? Also the way you describe this, it would be ripe for abuse by people who just want a free house wouldn’t it? Just don’t pay your rent and get taken away to be given a free house and food and all your bills paid!
See above.
The state of New York could buy these homes and use them to re-home individuals placed into them or repurpose them. Or build new, affordable housing.
Are you seriously arguing for renting and no social safety net? If rent was affordable and fair, it’d be another story.
Sure, if the people that own them wanted to sell them.
But many of these people couldn’t afford “affordable housing”, so it would need to be free. Food would need to be free, electricity would need to be free, water, internet, etc would all need to be free (for them, but paid for by taxpayers). Also where is the new affordable housing being built, and who is paying for it?
Huh? The point was that using YOUR scenario, people could easily abuse the system to simply get free housing/food/etc by missing a rent payment and getting taken away and given a free house/food/etc.
That would be up for the state of New York to determine. Housing is a right, whether or not the laws have caught up. Food is a right and so is water. Electricity isn’t a luxury. If they could afford the housing at a later date, their eligibility for things being “free” should be re-evaluated.
Perhaps the many corporations and billionaires that dodge taxes could pay for it. Perhaps the federal government could stop spending trillions on war out of US taxpayer money and provide homes for homeless and vulnerable individuals? Perhaps, if we allow these individuals to feel safe and heal, without punishing them criminally or otherwise traumatizing them, they would later offset the expenses spent to better them.
You aren’t abusing the system by needing a house. If we’re talking free or affordable housing, again, there is a crisis, and it should be provided to individuals.
Ok so your entire argument hinges on the complete overhaul of society. Gotcha. I’m out.
I want to live in a kind and free world. Sorry you feel differently.
So do I, but that’s not the world we live in and it’s not helpful to say that your utopia society ways are reasons why this isn’t better than what we currently have.
Asking for our country’s government to stop meddling in the Middle East and funneling a very large chunk of our money paid into it by taxpayers for war and offense isn’t asking the world. We aren’t barbarians, we can effortlessly provide for human needs with our technology and organization as a society.
Helping individuals live a basic life is a not an “expense”. It’s a misnomer to call it that. There would be many who would create more value to the economy than what is spent on them if they received the proper support and weren’t put under so much pressure.