I only spent 30 seconds to a minute near the turnstile.

So one evader per 90s is probably a charitable estimate. It can’t be extrapolated to all the time though, because I was there it during rush hour.

This week, for each time I paid the fare, I saw at least one person jumping the turnstile. And I was wondering where are the cops?

So I’m actually surprise it’s only $500 million.

Or maybe the stations I use are just very common to have fare evaders.

NYC press has their priority in roughly order:

• Most important: $300 fine for Adams
• Medium importance: $13 million per year lost because of covered license plates
• Least important: $500 million per year lost because of fare evasion

The driver will probably be out the next day, and if he doesn’t take a plea deal, there will be so much evidence generated by the whole ordeal (all the comms of officers involved, all the security footages, all the 911 calls related to the event, etc) that it’ll be impossible for the DA to collect all the evidence for discovery and not violate the discovery requirements, such that he will likely get the case dismissed.

Rent more shelter beds at 5k/month each!

Yeah, a 3min intake “medical” screening on an uninsured person in a shelter would be the most profitable 3min of any doctor in the city.

Meanwhile, NYC shelters are more deadly than Riker’s.

So they can rest, but because of city regulations they are not allowed to sleep?

That’s 1k cheaper than a typical shelter bed packed in a homeless shelter in NYC (which the city pays more than 5k per month per bed in long term contracts).

>“Did Fleishman make you want to change anything about your life?” I finally ask her.“
>
>Yeah,” she says. “It got me thinking it’s time for me to get therapy.”

There should be a show about the therapy journeys that eventually lead those characters on being more grounded in reality.

Now review all the contracts he approved without proper oversight.

Reminder that a typical congregate shelter around here charges the city 5k per month per bed. Beds packed in big rooms with shared restroom.

$350 million is 70% of what's lost due to fare evasion. If there was no fare evasion, the MTA could even reduce the fare cost.

A lot of people in this sub would have a tough time deciding between complaining about hiked up fares or defending the practice of fare evasion. Choose one.

https://www.cityandstateny.com/policy/2022/12/mta-spending-1-million-month-private-security-guards-amid-crackdown-fare-evasion-subway-system/380798/

>Five hundred million dollars – that's how much the Metropolitan Transportation Authority system is currently losing each year because of fare evasion, transit leaders recently said.

I have no doubt there's corruption.

There's a lot of inefficiencies too.

I think you might like this article: How to build back under budget (maybe) | The Economist

>But unfortunately the agency drawing up the contract does not have enough qualified staff to conduct a full review of construction proposals. The lowest bidder wins the job, as is typically the case in America. After winning, however, the contractor quickly tacks on additional costs, and the government is again in over its head. Unable to manage such a big project, it ends up relying on contractors and consultants who botch key segments of the Wilson line, requiring expensive do-overs. Inter-agency turf battles and co-ordination problems worsen the situation.

Compared to NYC, Paris is almost a circle.

So perhaps the solution to public transit efficiency is to change the shape of NYC so that the outer edges of the city are roughly equidistant from the center.

The true New Yorker way would be:

• The NYC Council or legislative drafts the construction plan.
• Then, the contractor is supposed to follow exactly what the Council drafted or be liable criminally.
• Then, when half of a neighborhood collapses, they blame the contractors.

I'm not saying that there is a litmus test.

I'm literarily asking if there's one.

We have a small number of people exploiting the system and threatening to ruin it for everyone else. Pretending that subset of people doesn't exist only makes the problem worse.

>You treat each case individually based on the evidence available.

Yes, treat each case individually.

And consider that in this individual case the suspect literally said he would “do it again”.

>“I’m going to say 80% of them really tries to. They take their hormones and they go for the surgery. And then you have the other 20%, like ‘Mhm-mmm, no, you’re just there to take advantage of the females.’”

It's always a small group ruining for everyone else. Isn't there any way that they can be singled out, to the benefit of most?

The DA needs to send a message and throw the book at the perpetrator.

For any sane person, there's no economic hardship or life experience that makes beating a 90-year-old like that relatable.

NYC Council election is this year.

The primaries are just around the corner.

Remember to register to vote.

Even if you're not in that district, pick a candidate that pledges to end "Member Deference"

>he didn’t start the fight

That actually makes the conduct worse, not better.

He attacked the guy who was already on the ground in a more vulnerable position, while being overwhelmed by a large quantity of attackers.

>that's not how convictions work. Would you rather this person go to trial and potentially get the case dismissed or a lower sentence?

Yes I would prefer that, actually. If he goes to trial and the state loses fair and square, I don't see a problem.

The DA office should be sending a message here. Throwing the book at hate crimes shouldn't be controversial.

Part of the role of the DA is to send a message that helps protect the law.

The correct message is important, because it deters further crimes from even happening. Deterrence is a lot cheaper than waiting for more crimes to happen, leading to further victims, costs to the state, and even incarceration.

That guy saying he would “do it again”... obviously did not get any of such message.

He's gonna go around the community and share his experience with others, and that experience will surely not include the message of "don't commit hate crimes". It seems quite the opposite.

Bragg is not only missing an opportunity to nip this in the bud, he might be fueling it further by giving what appears to be a sweet deal.

You're mistakenly conflating the issues with qualified immunity with the issues with this bill.

This bill having problems doesn't mean that qualified immunity doesn't need revision.

None of the resources you're linking are specific to this bill.

Our legislative in NY is notorious for drafting bills in a half-ass feel good manner, only to discover later that the bill had many flaws.

​

>A gov employer will indemnify you if you were within the law or policy.

Under the NY bill (I don't know about the Colorado bill), as drafted, that's not true on two counts:

• The gov is not allowed to indemnify only if the employee is convicted of a crime related to the conduct.
• The bill prohibits "within the law or policy" as a defense. If the law or policy is determined to be unconstitutional after the fact, the employee is still liable.

>The most recent case that the DA bungled was from a cop who was doing this between 2011-2015.

That case was dismissed with prejudice though.

While that outcome is still an injustice to the victims, that cop would still be presumed innocent until trial, and now (post-trial) he should be decidedly innocent.

That bill is not going to stop the government from paying.

It actually includes an explicit indemnification clause allowing that.