I mean, for each hospitalized person, how many merely had an “unpleasant” day visiting the toilet that did not warrant going to the hospital?

That’s where I think the path for homeownership should be easier.

Coming up with the down payment, negotiating a lower interest rate, and doing it in bulk (many homeowners at the same time, many building maintenances at the same time, etc) is something that maybe only a government can help organize (organize, not run).

But you know, some people think it’s just better to chain those tenants to a lease for life.

You’re too fixated on the market price.

Market price is just a measure of wealth, and an incomplete one.

Owning a home over the long term which you can enjoy is by itself wealth.

Get people a fixed 30-year rate so that they can buy their home over a long period of time, rather than paying rent without accumulating any equity.

We had a whole decade to do move a ton of long-term tenants into homeownership for very cheap and missed the boat. Next time the interest rates come down, we should be prepared for that.

The problem is that there is no market for constructions when only the “well connected” are able to get zoning/permits to build housing.

NYC was captured by a NIMBY mafia that is starving the city of new supply.

It can be owned and it can be cheap enough to buy with the cost amortized over time, if we make enough housing.

That’s better than being chained to a lease and paying rent for life.

Yes you can.

Owning a home you can live, by itself is wealth.

The market price of the home going up is just a measure of market price, because the home and the quality of life you derive from it is the same.

I think part of giving a path to homeownership for people should include some form of lower transaction/tax costs for people buying their first home.

You have a point.

There are two job openings for each unemployed person in the US. Plenty of opportunity.

>Given a path to home ownership? They’re free to buy something whenever they like

Not when they can't accumulate any wealth, because the wages are artificially low, because their leases are kept artificially low (rent regulation), because of government interference.

Meanwhile, we spend 3 billions on homelessness, and the problem doesn't have an end in sight.

San Francisco has a budget per capita 50% higher than NYC, and the problems are worse there.

No amount of budget will fix the problems created by the capture of the city by those political groups. In fact, all they want is more budget, to perpetuate their serfdom system.

Forcing how?

No one is forcing NY politicians to not govern in the interest of the people in those districts, and lose votes as a result.

The only thing which forcing it here is the stubborn ideology that ignores the people.

Renting is great for the short-term, where people want mobility and the option to easily move out.

But long-term tenants should really be given a path towards home ownership, so that they never have to deal with landlords, have stable housing and accumulate wealth over time.

This class system that chains tenants to their leases for life should never exist, and only benefit the politicians who profit from perpetuating such struggles while posing as their "advocate".

It still sounds like you have no problem with totalitarianism.

Sure, I edited my comments for correctness.

The fact that you care about the precise wording makes it sounds like you dislike fascism, but you have no problem with totalitarianism.

>My brother in christ read the next sentence. Republicans are blocking it at the Federal level

And that gives us a license to suppress the will of NY voters?

Some people think that fighting fascism requires employing totalitarianism.

>The solution to fix gerrymandering is only at the Federal level, but guess what?

Then fix at the federal level, but don't use gerrymandering to get there, otherwise the incentive to fix will disappear.

We shouldn't be resorting to totalitarian shit in NY.

> Cuomo said the GOP gains shows that Democrats can’t be “crime deniers,”

The only crimes that were acknowledged were the ones in republican states.

If crimes in republican areas are so much worse and given that progressives really care about that, why don’t progressives go there and win a lot of seats from the republicans, instead of hiding in safe districts here?

And maybe solve their crime issue too to show them how it should be done.

I write in names like “More Candidates” if i don’t know who is in that ballot.

If I know the candidate is terrible, I vote for “Golden Retriever” or “Mickey Mouse”

I’m writing in a protest vote in all unopposed ballots.

It was meant as temporary. Your comments here says a lot about you, but I’ve unblocked you nonetheless. Hopefully we can have constructive dialogs in the future.

>The professor then admitted privately over email that the U.S. census count is actually 1,227,788 police.

It took me 5 minutes to figure out that the 1.2M figure includes police and correctional officers.

The BLS currently indicates:

• 808,200 Police and Detectives [1]
• 419,000 Correctional Officers and Bailiffs [2]

Which adds to 1,227,200. That's obviously counting the head-count of policing and incarceration personnel, which is exactly what the cited article is aiming to separate.

Alec Karakatsanis is just being sloppy and hasty in trying to push his political agenda, and making himself look intellectually dishonest in the process.

[1] https://www.bls.gov/ooh/protective-service/police-and-detectives.htm

[2] https://www.bls.gov/ooh/protective-service/correctional-officers.htm

>Your mealy-mouthed response is pretentious, cowardly, and fools nobody.

Anyone who reads my original comment with honestly can see I did not conclude for "tough-on-crime". That interpretation came from your own bias.

You could've asked in good faith and I would've answered.

I'm actually in favor of less punishment, I elaborated more in https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/yong64/comment/ivfq98g/

One specific policy that I see push back is the inclusion of a public safety consideration in the bail laws. I don't believe that's tough-on-crime, because every other state in the nation has it.

Stewart-Cousins is the leader of the NY Senate, and she had famously threatened to hold climate change and gun control legislations hostage just to block such measures.

And I don't believe blocking that is a progressive thing to be honest. That's why I refer to it as "progressive" in between quotes, or just fake-progressive.

Such things perpetuate inequities on POC and disadvantaged people and communities who are disproportionate victims of crimes.

>However, I believe a lot of that violence in underserved neighborhoods begins with policing. Armed cops who see any citizen as a potential threat have an inherently violent effect.

You're right on point with that. Mistrust in the police is also a stronger factor leading to community violence than poverty.