again it collapsed in some places in the city because the undesirable areas ( ( high crime and/or far away ) werent getting rented -

my point still hasnt been answered as to where its been the case that by building extra units its dropped the affordability by 30% or more ...( again if the avg income is 65K ) and it NOT be a steady mkt ( the opposite of a COVID event )

people who earn 65k ( or less) are the ones that need apts - it does no good to have more apts at over 2000/mo and pretty much if a builder builds apts they arent building for 2000/mo they are building for almost 3000. so again, 800K apts at 2500/mo only helps people earning way way WAY more than 65K - it does nothing for those who earn 65K

if it does - then ,y ask is to point out a real example where this added supply has resulted in a drop in price....because so far all people have offered is a theory that more market rate is somehow beneficial not proof of where its actually made apts "affordable" ....

there is an affordability crisis .....not just a supply crisis.

and again - that doesnt mean the price drops - that just means those apts go on the market at the market rate - which just boils down to more $2500 studios that no one who is on a average salery can afford...certainly not a family of four

still beggers my original question which was please show an example where a mass of apts are dropped on the market and that results in a substantial ( like a $1000 bux ) drop in the average rental price.

ok i dig that but firstly thats that theory -and secondly the price doesnt move there are plenty of new apts going on the market but they are for people who can "afford" to get into them - they dont need a lower price point.

so the issue isnt that there need to be more 2500 apts on the market

the issue is that there needs to be 1000 and 1500 apts on the market for those people who cant afford 2500 a month on rent -

so it still stands - how is increasing the amount of unaffordable apts some how going to get it to where those apts are "affordable" for the poeple that need 1000 to 1500 a month rent because their saleries can afford much more than that?? no one can really point a specific example of how having an increased supply of apts lowers the monthly rent unless of course its in a collapsing or collapsed market.

im not trying to be a rainer on the parader or anything...

yes the city needs housing - but lets be realistic here- if this is 800K units at the current market rate that still doesnt help the people who cant afford the current market rate.

i havent had anyone really answer this question- if the average houshold income ( for a family of 4 ) is like 60 or 80K ? that means rent should be something like 1500 a month....thats nearly a 1000 dollars ( or more considering the market since covid ) less than the market rate.

so where has this ever happened to where housing has been built to the extent that the amount put on the market has crushed the average price so much ? by say 30% yet still have a profitable market ( which is what banks, property owners and govt base some of their budgets on IE mortgages , taxes, and investment )

if we are getting 800K units at a price that a avg income cant afford - then how is this a good thing??

- this is about those who refuse or ignore the help of supportive services despite the fact they are severely mentally ill and need meds- or are substance /alchohol dependant....

no matter how much you may offer them a free home or counseling there is ( at least in NY ) nothing that can MAKE them take it when clearly they need it and aside from involuntarily making them subject to being detained or controlling them after they are medically stabilized ...there is little to MAKE them continue to adhere to meds or stay where a home is offered if they decide to not take meds and not take the bed you offer them...so the solution for them isnt supportive housing since they refuse to accept or acknowledge that they should be subject to services

this situation is described over and over by psychiatric and medical staff at hospitals and halfway houses ...

hm well there isnt much thats being done FOR psychotic patients beyond drugging them up when they do get into the system.

there isnt a lot of one to one therapy for severe psychotics that has worked to make them functional ...and drugging them is only as good as the ability to administer the drugs ....

it may solve SOME problems but clearly it doesnt do it enough for the vast majority of people that are severely mentally ill - there is a ton of services for people IF they decide to take advantage of them ...the issue is there is no process / mechanism to to make someone who chooses to not take their meds and not sleep on the streets to do so UNTIL they do something ( harmful) to themselves or to someone else.

they require someone /or something and for them to subject to that treatment of this is "where you HAVE to be , and these are the meds you MUST take"

our laws currently dont allow for that kind of control unless they are in the custody of the state..and the only way you get into custody is either criminally or voluntarilly ...there is no inbetween legally for the kinds of controls that they need versus whats legally allowable. really thats it

my reply is rather that what youre saying is "supportive" housing doesnt really address what these people need given the way the law and how supportive housing works.

there is no place thats making people take meds and/or controlling their movement... unless that person is in the custody of the state.

the problem is they require the monitoring and maintenance that is only allowable for someone who s under the control of the state

they cant be forced to return home ( and not live on teh street or ride the trains ) or ( the biggie ) take psych meds or keep a job - all of which someone who is severe schizo affective or schizophrenic and bi polar cant manage unless someone is MAKING them do those things

and lets not even talk about the ppl that are addicted to sucstances or alchohol who again - are so addicted that they already dont follow through exactly because of their addiction...

and then of course you have to find a mass of people willing to manage these sorts o f people as a full time job .....and pay them enough to retain them.

listen to WFUV 90.7 one of the best college and alt rock radio stations in the region....

ok so i heard this interview on NPR this morining - firstly the guy was arrested in Albany NY - the NYPD doesnt arrest there; they cant, they are a city agency; he was turned over to the city for a warrant that existed in NYC and he was turned over to the Dept of Corrections which is done when you are arrested for an arrest for an outstanding warrant - esp from another agency.

this occurs with almost every person that is arrested from another agency and has an outstanding warrant in NYC and taken into custody - and from the looks of the article each of the "plaintiffs" were apprehended by some other agency and turned over to the city for "custody" ....

sounds like this is more of a problem with dept of Corrections- because essentially the Dept of Corrections controls who ( as in prisoners ) is presented at court for hearings that are IN custody - NOT the Police.

i realize this is just whistling in the wind for some people - but ultimately this article and the assertion in the NPR interview is extremely deceptive and a distortion of the actual policy and what occurs when someone has a warrant in NYC and comes into contact with the NYPD ( or MTA police or Port Authority ) - they do actually take you directly to Court - NOT Rikers ...

the problem isnt the NYPD the problem is how the courts function with people who are in custody - why the NYPD is soley being focused on is kinda indicative of someones agenda rather than truthfully conveying the facts that are in the article once you actually read it.