Does this mean that Bragg will not allow the release of anyone back to the street without screening them for severe and untreated mental health issues?

That seems like an obvious thing to do. Don't let those few crazy people go back to the street without treatment (to commit crimes).

Edit: from the press-conference, that will be all voluntary for the defendants. I hope to be proven wrong, but this appears to be a completely toothless effort.

If they are going to provide housing plus services, their salaries need to be competitive.

Something in between a corporate job at a big landlord company and a hospital management salary.

>Mr. Hughes has criticized supportive housing providers for “creaming,” or selectively screening applicants who require the least services, leaving many others to restart the arduous review process. The selection criteria can also vary from one unit to another, further creating a bottleneck.

The devils are in the details.

Without a standard and transparent criteria with a controlled and randomized selection, it makes it impossible to extrapolate the nicer looking "success rate" (98%) of the model to the general homeless population (who may never qualify to the opaque screening criteria applied here)

>“We expect the N.Y.P.D. and district attorneys to provide us a full accounting of the evidence that was damaged and to immediately inform defense counsel about individual cases that may have been impacted,” said Redmond Haskins, a spokesman for the Legal Aid Society, one of the city’s largest providers of legal services for indigent clients.

In plain words: this is a Christmas bonanza for the Legal Aid.

Why did you get shitcanned?

Retail and office rent in NY have been declining almost every quarter since 2020. Meanwhile, vacancy is increasing.

ref: https://www.atlantafed.org/center-for-housing-and-policy/data-and-tools/commercial-real-estate-momentum-index

I think there's no finish line.

The fact that we have tons of empty storefronts and empty office space suggests it's too hard for new businesses to be created.

If existing employees are stuck in shitty jobs because they employers suck, creating new opportunities will move the needle on job safety and empowerment more than any regulation that intents to improve workers' position.

On the other hand, if we had physical limitations on commercial space available (all storefronts busy, say with skyrocketing commercial rents), I think the marginal low hanging fruit would be different and my criticism would be aimed at something else.

Yup. Employer collusion distorts the market, so employers colluding against the employees hurts all the employees. Post-employment non-compete clauses are also really problematic, in my view.

On unions, I don't mind company-specific unions, though if we get to that point, in my opinion, the market should've been competition-friendly enough so that the employees should be empowered to just walk to a competitor or quit en-mass and create their own company...

However, I oppose industry-wide unions, because that also tends to hurts small businesses and most employees.

>So it should instead be too risky to work for anyone?

Employees should have negotiation leverage by being able to easily change jobs.

That famed bill will protect a minority of employees (who would've otherwise be fired), but it would weaken the available opportunities for everyone else. Ultimately, that will only help the big employers and the few employees who are no longer fit for their position.

The article should've mentioned the empty storefronts all over town.

Meanwhile, the NYC Council is trying to make it harder and riskier for businesses to hire people. Disproportionately harder for smaller businesses.

Just click the “H. R. 6448” link in the vote page

For example, AOC voting against the Invest to Protect Act that proposed funding for de-escalation training for police departments.

https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022451

They do mention the issues of increasing policing in cities with large Black populations in the south and the mid-west.

Maybe they didn't mention anything about the representation of the police force explicitly (and perhaps will be a subject of follow up studies), but I think you know how the police force in those regions look like.

Like we all know that assigning a full white police force to police a black community is not a good recipe.

That's why it's important when cops represent the demographics of the communities they serve. This used to be what the progressive agenda advocated for.

But now we have this new brand of "progressiveness" that just want to defund the police or even go against police training to reduce brutality.

Cops save lives though. Deterrence is a lot better than incarceration.

>Williams and his colleagues find adding a new police officer to a city prevents between 0.06 and 0.1 homicides. [...] Adding more police, they find, also reduces other serious crimes, like robbery, rape, and aggravated assault.
>
>Even more, Williams and his coauthors find that, in the average city, larger police forces result in Black lives saved at about twice the rate of white lives saved (relative to their percentage of the population). When you consider African Americans are much more likely to live in dense, poverty-stricken areas with high homicide rates — leading to more opportunities for police officers to potentially prevent victimization — that may help explain this finding.
>
>...
>
>While they find serious crimes fall after the average city expands its police force, the economists find that arrests for serious crimes also fall. The simultaneous reduction of both serious crime and arrests for serious crime suggests it's not arrests that are driving the reduction. Instead, it suggests merely having more police officers around drives it. These findings are consistent with other research that finds concentrating police in "hotspot" crime areas appears to be an effective way to reduce crime.

Ref:

• https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/04/20/988769793/when-you-add-more-police-to-a-city-what-happens
• https://www.johnlocke.org/more-cops-less-crime-2/
• https://www.crimrxiv.com/pub/04pp9lid/release/1

Unless he catches a federal charge

Holy shit!

What was the speaker saying?

To attack someone like that in front of everyone, the guy is either deranged, or he wanted to send a message in response to whatever she was saying, or both.

> ask me if you want to learn about US involvement in Chinese governmental structures. either way, you should stick to partisan crime discussion, its a lot easier to understand

Your attempt at whataboutism sounds almost like an admission.

Because it sounds like you believe the predicate (“if it’s a foreign agent …”) is true and that you’re trying to respond to that.

Anyone can tell the protest at Columbia was in solidarity with the protests in China.

Is there anything relevant about the political history in China that you think we need to know with respect to this assault?

Are you trying to say the NYPost or the protest itself had a deep misunderstanding about China, as if that justifies the assault?

Are you a tankie?

Relevant DOJ press conference with statements of the FBI: https://youtu.be/VIapcfvGKfQ?t=111

There were recent cases of foreign agents acting illegally in the US. Including in NY.

Press conference by the DOJ with the FBI etc:

https://youtu.be/VIapcfvGKfQ

If it’s a foreign agent from the Chinese government who perpetrated that violence, then this needs to be investigated by the FBI too.

It’s even worse than a random assault because most likely she was assaulted for political reasons.