American Morning
Charging rent to homeless
[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/05/11/carroll.homeless.art.jpg caption= "Princess Seyborn and her daughter live in a New York City public shelter where they are now being asked to pay rent."]
Imagine you're a single mother. You're living in a homeless shelter making barely enough at your job as a day care worker to feed your daughter and pay the bills. Now what would you do if that shelter suddenly told you in order to stay you had to pay rent? This is the reality for Princess Seyborn and hundreds of other working homeless families in New York City.
The city is starting to charge working homeless families like Seyborn to stay in the city's publicly run shelters. Seyborn now has to pay $345 dollars a month in rent. "I tried to explain it on my best behalf," Seyborn said. "I don't have it and all I'm getting is pens and paper in my face saying sign here and sign here, and I refuse to sign."
The policy is based on a 1997 state law, which requires shelter residents with jobs to use a portion of their earnings to pay rent. The amount varies according to family size and which shelter is being used.
So why is the city implementing the law now? One reason could have to do with the results of a 2007 state audit. The city was required to pay back $2.4 million in housing aid that should have been supplemented by working homeless families.
The city's mayor, Michael Bloomberg, defended the policy saying, "Everybody else is doing it, and we're told we have to do it, so we're going to do it."
But some city officials say the mayor should be looking for ways to reverse the policy not enforce it. Homeless advocates warn the policy could actually prolong a person's stay at a shelter. Arnold Cohen, President and CEO of Partnership for the Homeless, said city officials don't understand the income many of these people make goes to childcare. Cohen said, "So, when they have child care they are able to look for a job, able to look for housing, but we're essentially taking that money away from them."
The city says the policy is designed to prevent the working homeless from becoming dependent on public assistance and to move families back into their own homes.
So what can the working homeless do if faced with the prospect of being kicked out under the policy? Princess Seyborn is filing an appeal with the state. But critics of the policy worry unless it is reversed, many working homeless will end up back on the streets.
About this Show
Welcome to the American Morning blog where you can get daily news updates from American Morning's reporters and producers. Join us for "the most news in the morning," weekdays from 6-9 a.m. ET, only on CNN.
On Twitter
they have to pay rent so the govt can $pend billion$ on WAR.
I think people have been relying on the government for too long, welfare, food stamps etc. I think those programs need to be there and are very useful, but time limits need to be placed on people. You should not be able to collect these benefits year after year. As far as the homeless shelters, I think 6 months to 1 year at no charge and after that you should have to pay something so they realize there is no free ride. I do feel however that $345 is a bit high – that will definatley inhibit their ability to move forward. Maybe $100 / month – just enough so people realize they have to get back on their feet. Those programs are there to help not to support you for the rest of your life. Look at the abuse of the welfare system – the more kids you have the more money you get, so they stay home, make babies and take more taxpayer dollars. All of these programs need to be limited.
Angel,
Get a clue. It's not Republican, just good sense (Republican?) I was homeless and once I found work, the shelter took a small percentage. It was worth it and you can still can save. You don't have much, but it's enough and it certainly made me appreciate the people who do try to get ahead. The others – people who can't or won't because of drugs and alcohol – well, they are the ones who throw away the safety net.
The resources are there if you are willing to submit to the rules. It's up to you. A very Republican idea apparently.
And another daddy that isn't taking on his responsibility. It takes two to make a baby and we should enforce the notion that it takes two to provide for them. If we, as a society, continue to allow the single parent syndrome, then we, as a society, will have to take care of it's results. I raised children and made sure I knew where they were and what they were doing and they had a value system that mandated abstinence. How have gotten into this established pattern of having children without the notion of responsibilty that goes along with them?
Makes sense to me, she's not paying an overbearing sum in rent. I'm sick of the free lunch policies that just leach of the tax payers.
Hey, we have something in common – I'd rather not use "a portion of my earnings to pay rent" either. The crazy notion of exchanging money/services for shelter is indeed so "very Republican".... best of luck Comrades.
OK, yes shelters get some funding, hold fund raisers etc. However this is not a world of entitlement. People living in shelters get state medical, food stamps and other help. Shelter residents do not clean nor help care for the building, because someone sued them for making them help.
So how much free help does one get ? How long should they be allowed to stay, I am all for offering a helping hand...no hand outs. People won't get back on their feet unless they learn to budget, nothing is free. ever. Wake up America, if we all give we can't all take. $345.00 seems like a fair amount for shelter, heat, lights and being able to wash clothing, bath etc.
i may be only 16 years old but i think this is one of the stupidest things that i have ever heard. why should people who are staying in a shelter be having to pay money each month for "rent"? obviously if the people staying there had an extra $345 a month, then they wouldnt be staying in a shelter! and making them have to pay rent is just going to add a lot more stress on, because a lot of them are probably going to be looking for a new job or a second, maybe third, job. Those of them that do have kids, who will they get to watch their kid(s) for 12 hours a day while they try to make enough money to be homeless? i guess this is just another example of the United States' stubborness. well, you better keep the sidewalks clean, because there's going to be a lot more people sleeping on them now.
As a social worker and homeless advocate, I can say that this story sounds worse than it is. Many shelters charge residents 30% of their income for rent, which is based on a HUD guideline. I'm guessing the $345 is 30% of her monthly salary. At these shelters, residents are also provided with free meals, hygiene items and access to affordable, if not free, childcare, substance abuse recovery services, and mental health counseling services. My goal as a social worker is to help the homeless become self sufficient so they don't find themselves in this situation again. Charging 30% of their income for rent and doing intensive budgeting with them weekly is going to better serve them in maintaining independence in the long run.
I am sick and tired of the fiscal family value party of god group next election the are going to be shut down for a very long time they can yell, scream, and hollar all they want we will not care any more.
It's great that this women is working hard to get out of her situation. Now she's expected to contribute (albeit, minimally) to offset some of the expenses she's incurring for the rest of us, and to help maintain the system so it's there for those that are even worse off.
Once my children get jobs, I'll expect them to contribute (again, minimally) to help offset household expenses. Do we expect less from these grownups than many of us do from children?
I'm so tired of the anarchist, hate everybody, attitude from the Republicans. The country is imploding and they still don't get it. HEY WAKE UP. YOU'RE DESTROYING US. Still don't get it? Yeah, I thought not. Because they're selfish and self centered.
She is working, she is making money, she should be expected to start contributing. How the heck else is she to learn about the real world if its all free... Grow up people who are outraged at this. Life isn't free it costs money. Life takes work.
I think we DO need to give people a helping hand when they are down, but not a free meal ticket and lodging for their entire lives they should be expected to work and contribute just like everyone else. She isn't mentally incapible of having a job and paying bills, she already has a job and is living (and eating?) for free. Its time to start learning how to stand on your own. I thinking paying a small percentage of her wages to support herself is not only fair its the only way peopel will start learning how to manage their money and in the end be able to move out have the job have the house... have a life not dependant on handouts.
I was homeless for over a year in Boston. Towards the end, the shelter wanted to put me in a program. I would have housing in a group home, which was fine. I was expected to cook for the house one night a week, which was fine. I was expected to obey the rules of the home, which was fine.
BUT, they wanted me to give them about 40%-50% of my income to help fund/run the house that was going to be accepting me into the program. At the time, I felt that I would do better staying at the shelter for another month or two, and using my paycheck to get my own place.
The shelter didn't charge me, and they let me keep my bed on nights I worked late.
I declined the offer to join the program. Within 2 months, I was out of the shelter–I was living on my own in a rooming house. Shortly thereafter, I met someone, and got a better job–this one full time.
I am happy to say that almost 20 years later, I am still working full time. I have been in a relationship for 16 years (4 of them married!), and my husband and I are about to sign mortgage papers to buy a home at the end of June.
The decision to NOT join a homeless program that asked me to give up my earnings was the best decision I made for myself. I understand that not everyone is as lucky or as driven as I, but I see trying to charge people when they are just getting back on their feet as a negative.
That being said, if funding cannot continue to house these people/families, I am not sure what can be done long term. The world has changed a lot since I was homeless.
There is no easy answer.
This is really a question of economics as it relates to class in our society, with party affiliation a secondary concern at best. The U.S. has always had a troubled economic history when it comes to questions and issues relating to capitalism. Some see unregulated capitalism as the pinnacle of freedom, but this is a faulty perception. We have recently seen a bifurcation of wealth in this country reminiscent of the late 19th century, and predictably, it has yielded similar social outcomes to those seen a century ago. Like it or not, unfettered capitalism has *always* tended to produce these results.
As far as the homeless woman is concerned, it's deplorable that in a nation so wealthy she is being asked to pay rent to stay in a shelter. Again, I wouldn't cheapen this discussion by making it a partisan issue. It is really about an alarming class division in our society. The elites who run this country are simply out of touch with the lives of the working class, the working poor, and the homeless.
when is this all going to end. It is absolutely ridiculous for HOMELESS SHELTERS to charge rent. How is a person suppose to get ahead in these trying times. Something needs to be done NOW!
Look, it is true we need to do what we can for the poor and working welfare however, it is also true that the government is UNABLE to continue funding these things, there simply is not enough tax money. It is not a matter of not caring, it is a matter of inability. The average US citizen works 5 months to pay all their taxes as it is: Property, income, sales etc. While it is easy to think "govt money" in reality there is NO government money. It is ALL taxpayer money. The government does not make money. I ask YOU how much did YOU donate to shelters last year (outside of your taxes). IF you ponied up, then you have a right to go on about others pontying up too, if you didn't then look to yourself first. The fact is while it would be nice, the government cannot be a cradle to grave safety net for everyone, SOMEONE has to work to pay the bills (taxes). Every country that has tried it or is still trying it has either collapsed (communism) or are struggling to keep ensure their citizens get to keep ANY income.
I think it may go a long way towards helping these people understand how to budget the money they have...especially if they are working..paying for food and shelter comes first and everything else is secondary. That's what everyone needs to do...and that is what she will need to be able to learn to do before she ever gets out of there...perhaps they should charge her the rent like some people do for their kids when it is time for them to leave home...and then give it to her as a lump sum when she leaves...like a forced savings plan..nod a bad idea???
I can agree with the shelters charging rent, as they should, if your employed. However, I don't agree with just picking a random number to charge~it should be based on your monthly income (including additional expenses-child care, bus transportation, and putting at least $25-$100 a week into an acct to be used for future housing away from the shelters) and family size. I have to work 2 jobs (1 full-time, 1 part-time nights/weekends) to pay my rent ($400), utilities, food, car insurance and a cheap cell phone.
This is the dumbest enforcement of the law that a city can place on an individual or family that's in a homeless shelter. I understand that there will be a few bad apples that will abuse the system, but to kick someone down when they are already down is just not right and I hope the people of NYC will stand up and fight for this. Mayor Bloomberg is dirty for this one, when he could have stood up for the small people that's trying to dig them selves out of there hole, he puts the clamps on them instead of trying to help them.....oh I see it's all about the money whatever little penny you can get.
This may be suggesting that some homeless people are homeless because they want to be. That is just a Bloomberg kind of reasoning. Hope he wins again, let's see what else we will have to pay for?
I can't believe this, it's truly sad. American claims to be the greatest county in the world, then crap like this happens. Time and time again, capitalism at its best.
Forget human compassion, forget Christian values. What ever happened to helping out the less fortunate? The government twists laws, and religion to suit their situation at every turn, changing views as they go along to make it seems like what they do is right.
How very Democrat it is to provide a home for someone who won't get out and make a way for themselves. And then when something is done to help her learn how to get on her feet we all get up in arms. She may be working, but is she attempting to make a way for herself or bum off of the government because it is easier for her to mooch off of the people of America? At sometime she has to start taking responsibility for herself and her family. The amount they are asking from her is very small especially for the city she is living in and the benefits (electricity, water, etc). Where else in New York City can she get a fully furnished apartment with all utilities paid for $345 a month. You can't even get one in my state for that. Why are we so quick to jump down the throats of Republicans and say oh how hateful and mean are the Republicans to want someone to succeed? Republican's don't want to stop someone from succeeding, they want them to be empowered to take care of their families without having to rely on others for their livelihood. Before you get all up in arms, I was raised below poverty level and grew up most of my childhood in a home with NO utilities, holes in my shoes, and my father jobless half the time. I know about hardships, including being in Foster Care. But I also know about working hard to overcome hardship. We didn't go out and buy new clothes or spend money on things we didn't need. There were 3 children in our family and we were thankful if we were able to go to McDonald's and split ONE Happy Meal between the 3 of us. You may feel that she is being mistreated, but if she is not challenged and empowered to change her life, to go out and be independent what hope is there for her future, or for the future of her daughter? Isn't providing for your family and succeeding the American Dream? If not, what is it? To be defendant on others? If no one tries to lead her to being more independent she may not have a drive to do so for herself. I think it is a good idea because it helps her to start budgeting their monies and getting used to paying rent. It will help her and others to develop real life skills they they are going to need once they get out on their own. If they don't learn how to budget, sacrifice and live within their means while they are trying to get on their feet, how are they going to learn once they get out on their own? It's like throwing someone in a lake and saying Swim or Sink! I hope that this young lady can learn the skills that it takes for her to be self sufficient citizen and that she uses the help available to her as a hand up, not a hand out.
You're supposed to pay rent, thats how the system works. Everyone wants a handout.
She has to pay $345 a month for rent? That's almost a hundred dollars more than I have to pay for my college apartment. Ridiculous.
"Joshua W May 11th, 2009 10:34 am ET
Who names their kid “Princess? Honestly people! If you can’t feed them, don’t breed them!"
I agree. You all need to practice BUDDHISM in order to see the TRUTHS.
Its the Democrats that made this law & the ones enforcing it. If you don't like it, dont be so ignorant and vote Democrat. The liberals are going to bankrupt this great country. Spend spend spend, more tax tax tax... thats their answer to everything. I'm happy with the party of NO right now, at least someone is thinking about putting our children & unborn grandchildren deeper in debt.
Again! I don't understand what has happned to this nation. Why do people think it's the governments job to take care of everyone. What ever happen to working hard-being accountable for your own actions.
funds should be placed in escrow until she can save enough and stabilize enough to get place of herr own. I see nothing wrong with shelter taking small percentage for partial reimbursement of expenses.
@ Angel, "How very Republican" That was a very leftist, liberal, and uneducated statement.
Here we see all the same doctrine and ideology being trotted out. "Freeloaders need to be pull them selves up." vs "Rich need compassion." What we need to realize in this debate is there are not easy black/white answers here.
The reality is the world has many shades of gray. Should a woman stay in an abusive relationship (many single mothers are left with a painful choice of a known danger and an unknown one on the street) for financial security? Should she cut corners on the childcare for her daughter (not everyone has the safety net of a family member to help) so she can pay shelter rent? If she or her child become sick do we let them die because they don't have means to pay for care? Should we compel her to pay half of her income for health insurance?
I am strongly in the Republican demographic (i.e. decent income, church going...). But I solidly believe the rather perverse sentiment that the deck is stacked FOR the poor is a shameful justification for greed. This form of greed is far more of a threat to our nations soul than issues of sexual morality that seem to be the only topics that foster a debate on morality.
Clint, if they are only charging $100 per $1000 a month as you say, then why are they charging her over $300? Does this mean she makes $3000 a month? If so, she wouldn't be in this position. I'm Canadian and am appolled by this.
How insulting.. Some agency that is funded by taxpayers is asking another citizen with a job to actually contribute something toward their rent. And $345 in NY city that's exhorbitant! And after all, thiis person has only received 6 months of free rent thus far!! Obviously I jest but we live in a country where PC politics and PC journalism don't allow for honest debate and if you dare to disagree with a PC notion than you must be evil at worst or heartless at best. For the record, I disagree.
However, I do fully support the notion that a civilized and humane society would alwasy offer Welfare assitance for those in need. But this friendly, un-stigmatized support should be designed as a means or a bridge back to being a self sufficient, contributing member of society. Because the simple truth is endless welfare only begets a life of low expectations and more welfare. The idea of charging a reasonable rent to a working person that is receiving assitance as a way of gradually re-introducing them to the realities and responsibilities of becoming a self – sustaining, tax payng member of society with a world of possibilities and high expectations is a great concept and the right thing to do. That said, you are now ree to villify me...
Hey Angel If you dont remember its a DEMOCRAT in office not a republican no matter what your arguement is you need put in ligitimate facts and stop being so ignorant. BUSH is out OBAMA's in so get it right and blame it on OBAMA go cry to him and get him to fix it.
I think its fair that homeless people who have jobs should pay rent – think of it as paying back and showing appreciations for all the FREEBEES that they've gotten for so long !
If they don't want to give some back – thats an act of selfishness !
I do think that homeless and poor people should NOT make babies until they're rich enough to give their future babies a good life ! why ?
1) they'll make their future babies suffer from poverty.
2) WE the taxpayer have to support those babies for the rest of our lives.
I don't claim to know all of the details of this law or the woman's income, but why should every homeless person be given a free ride? Whatever happened to hard work, persistance and tenacity? Some people in this country think that it is their right as a U.S. citizen to be taken care of regardless if they work or not. The real kicker is that we as a country tend to believe that every homeless or government assisted person is willing to put forth the effort to overcome their predicament (there is a difference between wanting too and actively trying too). Something has to be done to get people off their butts and learn to support themselves. There needs to be some serious tough love going on. I, myself have enough bills to pay and would rather not see my tax dollars spent to support freeloaders. Those who want a hand up will take the aid governments give them and claw their way out of the hole they are in. Those who want a hand out will keep taking our money until we kick them out of the nest.
If a bank CEO was staying at the there the government be giving the shelter money hand over fist. The banks have stolen our tax dollars and this b/s is what we the working class will have left to pass onto our children.
Maybe we should spend another 700 billion to bail out some more millionaires.
It's a crock of crap. It's just another way for Mr. Big to clamp on the back of the poor. It's like there are no classes anymore anyway. There are the rich and poor – that's it. No middle class the middle class is being sucked dry and the rich still don't pay even nearly their fair share. Gotta afford those fancy lawyers (blood-suckers) who can get you off the hook for anything from a crime to taxes.
You know I am angry when I see stuff like this. This person has a job which some folks don't or aren't able to work.
My mother can't get assistance @ 75 yrs of age. She has to decide whether to pay for needed medicine or pay her electric bill.
My transplant daughter is working making $10/hr and lost her assistance because she is making that $10/hr. Try living off that and pay for a decent place to live, groceries, electric, etc.
My paraplegic nephew (who was in an auto accident @ 3yrs old and been paralyzed ever since) has no facility to be placed that will take good care of him should something happen to my sister.
I don't have much sympathy for folks that feel everything is owed to them. Those that need help can't get help. Those that could make it don't want to help themselves.
I agree the government is broken and the processes in placed don't work. My personal experiences is living proof.
Or it might be that she lost her home she had because the Democraps made it so that people that cant afford a home can still get one with 26% intrest. Thanks Bill!
I completely agree. Everyone works hard to pay for what they need and want, no exeption should be made. I have nothing againts social aid for the less fortunate, on the contrary I encourage it. However, help should be about personal, social and financial growth, NOT accomodation. I do believe she is strong and I admire her for being a single mother and working instead of laying around doing nothing like so many do. This being said, she should look at this new bump on the road as an opportunity to reach for higher standards of her living situation. We never know, this may lead her to a house of her own.
Dorothy,
Your suggestion about taking the money and keeping it for the homeless is a good idea. I don't see anything wrong with charging the homeless rent to remain in a shelter; but I think that money should be kept in a bank account and used as a security deposit on the homeless person/family's next apartment. Many homeless people have become homeless because of bad choices. I know because I have been evicted before (twice) because of bad money choices. Making them pay rent and saving the money on their behalf can help them learn to manage their money. I know that this particular shelter mentioned in the article is charging rent to make their budget, so I recognize how this may not help the homeless person in the long-term.
It's actually something of a common sense idea- the rest of us have to work to pay our way, why should those homeless who are working and making a reasonable income not have to pay a small percentage of their income to help support themselves? In NYC, housing is obscenely expensive, and the amount quoted would not be sufficient to pay for an apartment. In order for a family to save, however, the amount seems high, and that should is what should be looked at again, not the idea itself.
Many commentors appear to be democrats looking to socialize eternal care programs. Amazing how this lady knew the rules and was free-loafing for so long, and now complains once the rules are enforced. If we, the people, don't like the rules, change them...stop complaining when they're being enforced.
About time! I agreed that everything isnt FREE. I have been PAID my dues (School loan, dorm, foods, credit cards, Cell Phone, gas, clothes, and now I have two kids with rent house) I still pay them as My due... so they should be pay ANY kind of rent, not FREE rent.
If they want FREE, then go to woods area... it is ONLY way! I would if I lose my jobs, I would zoom to woods and start live there and plant my own foods and my skills for any future trade with other stuff.
Wow,
The city’s mayor, Michael Bloomberg, defended the policy saying, “Everybody else is doing it, and we’re told we have to do it, so we’re going to do it.”
Please take a long walk into the river Mr. Mayor....someone told you you have to do it, now do it!
Geez, obviously his mother never told him that if everyone else jumped off a cliff would you?
Congratulations, most of you all sound like a bunch of well indoctrinated Socialists. In a capitalist society, those who work hardest live the best. In a Socialist society, everyone except the ruling class, lives below our standards. Those of you that think this is, "...very Republican." need to stand back and take a look. In most cases, the most depressed cities in this country are run by a Democrat administration.
How sad. Making a homeless person pay almost $400 a month in rent in absurd. I guarantee that there will be many more people back on the streets because they won't be able to afford this! Mayor Bloomberg should take some of his millions and help those families. What kind of world are we living in when homeless people have to pay rent...they are HOMEless!! C'mon people.
Disgusting. Sounds like a Republican government to me.
I have to agree with all of you who are saying "no free lunch" granted I'm 18 but i've been through my share of crap. Actually for most of my life i've been dirt poor but hey we got through it and out of it! Working to help support my single mother at the age of 15 working 50+ hrs a week going way way over the laws for students working durring the school year. And then even taking care of my disabled grandmother this past summer until she was well enough to do things her self and still working a full time job! Heres the kicker i've now got TWINS and i'm taking care of em the best i can making $8.00hr paying $400 in rent and other exspenses (paying rent to mother in law) So i have no sympathy for this woman who can take care of her child AND pay $345 in rent hell i wish my rent would drop a lil....Oh and i'm starting college that i'm paying for my self this fall.
So i think if i can do ne one can cause fresh outa high school and already in the hole, i think i'm doing relativly well for me and my girls
after digging through the sensationalist slant this story has, i think the idea of charging long-term homeless "a percentage of their income" to continue to stay in the shelter makes sense.
In order for welfare programs to truly work, they have to provide some sort of "nudge" within their supporting framework to help people "get back on their feet" ... otherwise, by merely providing for some of the needs of the people, it creates a situation where the victims/clients are forced to rely on that need (almost addictively), and that increases the number of people hanging on the system – which is good for people "in the business" of providing for the poor, but bad for the poor themselves.
i'm sorry that she has to pay $345 a month – a PERCENTAGE – of her income – to take up the space needed by others worse of than she. Their percentage is likely 30% or less than the total income (if keeping in line with most other welfare programs, being based on the idea that the rest of the income needs to go to other necessities of life) ... if that is so, she makes about $1150 a month. (Not a lot, but it's $1000 more a month than i make, and i have 2 kids with another on the way!)
The cost of living is much higher in urban areas than in the rural areas. Where i live, $345 a month would rent her (or be payments on) a nice 3 bedroom house. Apartments are around $300 a month – and they are every bit as nice (or better) than those we had in urban areas that went for $1200+ a month!
Why don't the poor move away from the city, to some where less expensive, where there is also work available? Is it that we don't have shopping malls and as many fast-food restaurants? Is it that there are more "manual labor" jobs out here than easy office jobs? Is it because cellphone service is spotty or that you can't find a $4 coffee no matter how hard you look?
Is it maybe that we don't have as many "free rides" available in rural America, or that out here "entitlement" is a dirty word?
'How very Republican’…actually it sounds a bit Democrap to me... nothing like encouraging those on welfare to continue to do so..
It's ridiculous that people are punished for working. So, if you're NOT working, you get to stay for free, but if you ARE working, you have to pay them rent to stay in the homeless shelter?
Some of these laws are so backward. For example, I'm pregnant, and because I have a job, I don't qualify for medicaid. I don't make NEARLY enough to be able to afford health insurance costs for a pregnant woman, which are RIDICULOUS. Of course, every lazy, unemployed woman with a bunch of kids gets free health care, but I get penalized for working. My first doctor's appointment is going to cost me $370. But if I didn't have a job, it would be free. How is that fair? The working class always gets shafted.
And, how are they suppose to save up for a permanent place to live?
If in fact, she needs pay rent, then how could she possibly ever save enough to get out and be on her own. Did anyone ever estimate how rich Michael Bloomberg is?
How will she ever be able to save money to move out into her own place if she has to spend money to stay in a shelter? According to the article, she is buying her own food and is paying her own bills. Is it really too much to ask to let her live rent free while she saves money to move on with her life?
Princess is neither homeless (shelter living) nor jobless. Paying her own way, however little, should be what she WANTS to do and she should be proud that she is able do it. Shelter AND food in NYC for $345 a month? Not a bad deal if your alternative is a box under a bridge.
Article says "barely pay bills" What bills? Car, Rent, Utilities? Hmmmm!!!
Shelter is a temporary place to stay. If you decide you want to live there, then you pay. Maybe not $345, but something.
And then the feed my child statement – Really – how much could that little child eat? I could feed my son for a week on 2 boxes of mac and cheese when he was little.
And – if she works at a day center, does she get free child care?
Not that I'm unsympathetic to people who get thrown into these situations, but sooner or later you have quit the whining and get with the program. There is NO free lunch Somebody pays for it. Taxpayers like me and most of the country. And you know I'm happy to pay my taxes because that means I have an income to tax.......
How about this teaches work ethic and the idea of saving. Liberals want to complain about the state of our nation and how awful we are but bear in mind our current unemployment rate is still 6% less than the normal unemployment rate of countries such as France.
I'm glad this person is working but this is a good policy, one similar to work-fair rather than well-fare. The lazy free loaders who make no attempt to work should get last consideration for a room if its an issue of space.
Maybe she thinks she should be TREATED like a 'princess' too. If she, or any other homeless person has a job, then they should be required to pay SOMETHING. She doesn't have to pay a mortgage, utilities etc. After all, it would help these shelters help even more people in need. PAY UP!
She is a daycare worker in New York City, she will never be able to completely be able to pay for all of her living needs by herself. Paying for a portion of the shelter cost cost is not asking too much. When did we just start giving everything away free? Let just throw in the towel and teach no new living skills,responsibilities,or money skills. By all means some fee should be collected for family size and income size.
Angel, Im glad you see this as a "Republican" thing, even though this is a STATE law that was made by Democrats. Better luck with that next time. And I did notice that Princess and her daughter are wearing those hot new Nikes. My friend just came back from NYC with those same pink ones that Princess is wearing for his gf.. They are $139.. No wonder she cant pay $345 for rent.
The free ride is over. Pay the rent or get out !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Paying a portion of what you make yes. But as a non homeless person who works in childcare she does not make enough to pay 345 as an appropriate portion of her income. If she has to pay for childcare herself she aqbsolutely can not afford it. And in transportation cost to and from work and there we go. Paying a portion yes but I garuntee that's not an appropriate portion. I am alsoa student who interns with homeless and this will certainly encourage many people not to work. Those of you who have never been homeless, try it for a week and tell me that you would stay there if you did not have to. You people are ridiculous clearly this woman is trying to do what she needs to for her and her child, she went and found a job she should be saving her money to get an apartment. Give her a time limit to move out or help her find a stater apartment but do not punish her for being one of the people trying to do what's right, while giving others no incentive to try. Then you all can get out your pens and pads and go find your local low income housing units count them document them and then walk yourselves down to city hall or public housing and get the n7umber of people waiting for local income housing and do the math. As for the person working several jobs I know about 150 people personally who would be more than happy to take one if not both of those jobs of your hands.
Anyone who envies someone living in a homeless shelter because they are getting "something for nothing" better wake up and smell the coffee! In this country, if you want anything more than crumbs and leftovers, you have to work for it. If you don't believe me, you are welcome to move into the nearest shelter and live on public assistance. I'd much rather have my tax money house poor people than enrich Halliburton.
Just one of the many corporate ripoffs of taxpayers money would pay for housing for every homeless person in the U.S. The "problem" is not the poor. Don't be fooled by the hype.
Trying to scrape up the dividends by charging the homeless? I mean, come ON!
Make just five of the Wallstreet executives pay it forward and you'd have the money.
This is putting someone in a desperate situation into an even more desperate situation.
Throw them out and let them starve
Why is it the government's responsibility to provide for people? This is not a socialist society!!!
Let me get this straight. Someone at a Homeless shelter has a job and gets some income. The shelter has a requirement that they participate at a minimal level for that food and shelter with a pro rated part of the income they make as payment. Wow, what a concept. Learning that shelter and food are a financial priority. People offended by such a concept should not be allowed to raise children unless they can provide for them in perpetuity since they will likely not be able to support themselves. The weak, as they are labeled, will not get stronger by a system that reinforces an entitlement reality. Life has struggles and can be difficult. When we teach ways of managing that we help a person grow. When we provide a handout we ensure they remain weak.
This country is clearly going to crap.....why not just kill the people who can't afford to live?
If everyone were to adopt the mindset of "let the government take care of me" just where is the government going to get the money to take care of everyone? Capitalism may not be perfect, but it is the best system going. Any system (a government, a school, even a household) that encourages self-responsibility is a heckuva lot better than one that encourages dependency.
Paying rent at a shelter is not a solution, but another attempt at playing catch up in this economic crisis that has left both the private and public sectors low on funds. However, having to pay 11 dollars and change a day is not unreasonable, especially in an expensive city as New York. I live here, I know first hand. Until we can find concrete solutions to our health care problems and our economic situation, we will ALL have to make some sacrifices.
Clint: I call bull. Another news agency carried this story, and they are going to be charging one woman almost $400 per month when she only makes $800 as a cashier at Sbarros. And that woman is paying daycare and trying to save up money to get out of the shelter. So your allegations that they will be charging $100 if a person makes $1000 is crap.
Why do people think they should get a free or subsidized ride? People who utilize the 'system' the most, should pay the most for it.
You got to be kidding...only in America...bankers who ripped off the system get billions in bailout money...and the homeless is ask to pay rent...come on.
Im all for it.
Tell us how much she makes per month to see if she can afford that $345 payment. They feel she can afford it and maybe she can.
If that amount is close to 25% of her monthly income I dont see what the big deal is.
To many people feel that they are "entitled" to a free lunch at the expense of others.
Why should I have to work two (2) jobs to pay increased taxes to support these people who feel that they should not have to do the same.
I can see both sides. Having worked with the homless in a number of settings over the last 20 years I can see vaule in both the old and new policy. Some homless need a leg up, others it is a lifestyle choice. Finding the balance is difficult. The individuals who chose homelessness as a life style choice (their number is more then you may think) can become a bottomless pit of need when it comes to goverment services and money. Those unfortunates who are trying to get back into mainstream life however are also in abundance and could use a break.
Speaking as a person who's family struggled to get off of well fare this is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. If they are having to pay rent to stay at a shelter then they cannot save it up to actually pay for a deposit on a real apartment. This will just lock the ones who truly want to get out into those shelters. If they cannot pay for childcare they won't ever find a job. You cannot lug your children with you to job interviews, you won't get hired. This needs to come off the books or there needs to be a loop hole created for those who are honestly trying to get themselves out of the shelters.
How very like the Democrates. TAX TAX TAX. Now they want to tax the poor!
Maybe it would not be so bad if the city put 2/3's of the money in an interest bearing account on behalf of the homeless and help them to get financially ready to move on with their lives. Then the city keeps 1/3 of the money to keep things running. Charging people who are in probably the worst time of their lives seems to me be the worst possible thing that could done. Taking the money to get them off the rolls of the homeless makes no sense when these people are making min. wage or maybe a little higher. GET A BRAIN and really do something helpful!
Perhaps the Homeless shelter should go to Former President Bush to get their money.
This is not Republican nor Democrate, it is about people being expected to pay their own way in life and not depend on the government. If the parents can't afford their kids that is CHILD ABUSE and they should lose them.
Several have written comments indicating that they think these homeless people should be allowed to save money so they can eventually get out on their own.
Are you people on drugs? Trust me, if these people knew how to save they would not be in a homeless shelter. Wow. Just wow. Quit feeling sorry for people who won't even try to help themselves.
It seems to me that whether you agree or disagree, if you didn't write your legislature or call your congressman you just vented on another blog. People stop preaching to the choir, Americans have the power to force thier government to act on their behalf. If you really want change, change your thoughts into actions. No need to wait on anyone else. Peace.
Notice something about the comments here. Everyone who agrees with the policy makes a point as to why it should be implemented, or suggests a way to change it so that it is more beneficial. Everyone who is against it just yells that this is mean, heartless, and suggests we give them hugs. Has it occurred to anyone that one group (I'm willing to bet the majority Conservative) plans ahead, pays its bills, and expects no handouts from the government but pays for them anyways, while the other group just whines and complains and cries for more government welfare? Why are we still helping these people? If you're a contributing member of society, perhaps the time has come to stop, and just allow this system of handouts to collapse as it should.
So many of you who consider this a "reasonable" law please ask yourself: how close have you ever been to the streets? You may think these people are free-loading because you don't want to shell out an extra dollar or two in taxes to give the bottom a leg up, but walk a mile in their shoes. Then you really might know what it's like to sing the blues.
This seems like a counterproductive idea. You're providing a shelter to people who have no home. Presumably they need to save money to eventually get a home (security deposit and first month's rent, etc.)You want to prevent people from becoming dependent on the shelter? Easily done – only allow them to stay for a limited period of time.
This is just a bizarre way to tax the homeless, IMHO. What a novel idea. By the way, for those of you who seem to think this is a "Republican" idea, check out what state this is in – NY is about the most liberal state in the country. Republicans are not the ones who like to find new ways to tax people – that's a Democrat's trademark.
What other bills would she have? If your living in a shelter you are not paying utilties, So maybe she has a food, cell phone, and some medical bills for her child's check-ups but otherwise these bills are for things she wants not needs.
I did not know you could work and live some where for free? But many people are still commenting that the government is failing these people. Give me a break this is the land of the free, which means you are free to go where you want, work where you want, Not live off of the government and tax payers.
May I kindly remind all of you out there who say the government needs to help these people, you yourself are the government, all the governments money came from the tax dollars you paid.
She also is more than likely getting assistance for her child care and does not pay the full amount, but rather a co-pay based on her income etc. We have to start looking at these things to ensure people pay their fair share and that amount of money is NOT overly burdensome. Maybe we should simply look at their income in this sitiuation too and still require her to pay something, possibly not $345, but something. Enough of the attitude that they should get everything for free. And as to the #90 nation in the world comment, tell me the other 89 socialist republics YOU would want to live in. And when you do, ensure you book a one way flight and bring your wallet. They will want it.
Hey, Bloomberg, what do you tell you children when they ask to do something just because everyone else is doing it? In response, my mother always asked her children, "If everyone else is jumping off a bridge, will you follow that, too?" Come on, don't use that as an excuse. Remember Hitler's followers...everyone else was looking the other way, so I did too!
Oh, i met several people on permanent disability. I knew they are mentally sharp enough to get a job. In fact, they are more articulate and more resourceful than I am. The country fails and has been taken advantage by so many people who do not want to work and just want to get a check at the end of the date while each single one of them join this Netflix program to watch one to two movie a day as the goal of the day.
This is an idiotic policy. It incentivizes not working. Just put a time limit up on the homeless that have steady full-time employment. They keep the money but have X number of months to move out or start paying rent at that point on. How the heck do you expect people to get back on their feet if you don't let them get started? It takes money to make money.
These homeless shelters are simply trying to ween the homeless from living free off of our taxes and to learn responsibility and the consequences they must endure if they don’t pay their fair share to our society. This issue should be shown/taught to our high school students to provide an example as to what might happen to them if they quit school and do not gain any skills or trades to help feed themselves and their kids. People MUST be taught responsibility or our society will be increasingly populated by unskilled, undereducated scrounges, living off the other citizens who DID pay attention in school and learned how to take care of them selves, their families and their country. In our global society, everyone must keep learning new skills and ideas to help the citizenry survive and prosper.
It's kinda sad that this woman has nothing better to do than complain that she has to pay for her food and housing now. EVERYONE ELSE HAS TO PAY, WHY SHOULD SHE GET IT FOR FREE? When she eventually moves out of this shelter and gets a place she will be expected to pay rent, it seems reasonable to teach her some responsibility about paying her bills so she can be self sufficient, but all she does is gripe that her handout isn't free anymore.
I think that it's an excellent idea for residents of a homeless shelter to be required to pay a certain percentage of their income to housing every month. I don't think that it's takes incentive away from getting a job or from working full time if implemented properly. If the rent costs were 10%, someone making 1,000 a month pays 100 and gets to keep 900, but if they only worked part time and made 500, they'd pay 50 and keep 450. Working more requires more rent, but they also get to keep more. Plus charging them "rent" helps them learn how o manage their finances and gives them some sense of ownership over their own lives.
It's not sick, it's rehabilitating. Permanent freebies are what are sick, because they keep people down.
definitely mixed feelings about this...most of my friends make fun of me saying that is because I'm an independent
Honestly, I have no issues with helping the homeless, especially if they have steady (though pathetic) jobs. However, I do have a problem with those with jobs not paying ANY rent....I mean, it encourages them to stay there forever. However, charging them because they HAVE a job sucks too - I mean, then what is the point in having a job? In reality, when they get the apartment, they should have a few months rent free. After about 3 months, if they still don't have a job they have to leave and reapply, Once the 3 months is up and they have a job, their income should be the factor for determination - how about a 5%-10% rate of their income? So if they only make 1,000 in a month, then they should have to only pay $50-$100. This should increase as their pay increases. But seriously 300 something a month? ridiculous. However, why don't they bus the homeless somewhere cheaper? I mean, NY is stupidly expensive after all.
I am torn between this news report. One part of me says good, too many people are taking advantage of the state and most never let go of the teet. They continue to suck and suck and suck without a care in the world while everyone else foots the bill. Where is the incentive to better yourself and strive to live on your own again? There is none.
Then the other part of me understands how hard it can be when there just is not enough money to go around. If you don't have it, you don't have it. There is nothing you can do to get any more. I think they should charge rent, however it should probably be a bit cheaper than what they want now. Then again, we don't know how much money she makes every week.
I guess the bottom line is – If you have a job and are making money, you should be able to pay rent. Once you are homeless, how many bills do you really have? None I would think. Without some form of motivation, there is no drive to be on your own. Rent should be based on some income level. A person that does not have it should not be forced to pay it. It's a slippery slope.
christian nation? I think not...
People in need of free accommodations can offer to work part time as live-in care providers to the elderly or disabled. This way elderly who can't afford to hire help can exchange their spare bedroom for free help around the house. Background and reference checks can easily be done by numerous reputable companies to factor out the risk.
You can find this type of exchanges on http://hostandcare.com.
So, wait.
She's homeless, but she has to pay rent? Those concepts seem mutually exclusive to me; rent means that you are exchanging money for a legal right to occupy (or share) a certain space.
I was under the impression that homeless shelters offered a place to stay for those who had nowhere else to go.
Even if the rent charged is far less than what you would find elsewhere, how is this homeless shelter operating any differently than government-subsidized housing?