« Report: Country Music Star Chely Wright to Come Out | Main | WATCH: Lt. Dan Choi, Cpl Evelyn Thomas at White House DADT Rally »

03 May 2010

Comments

Nathan James

This is what you get when a billionaire who neither knows or cares about the issues faced by his most vulnerable constituents, is elected to a THIRD term...

www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=39507466

It's a tough thing, these measures. On one hand, do we really want HIV+ citizens spending 50% of their income on rent ALONE? On the other, is it really under the purview of city responsibilities?

What does it say about a city's outrageous cost of living when citizens are spending so much just to have a roof over their head, not including clothes on their back and food in their mouths? What sort of message does it send to the young and decidedly reckless if they're aware that they can be "assisted" by city subsidy even if they get the disease?

These are difficult things to deal with (and I'm glad it isn't me having to make the decisions)...if I'm forced to make a judgment, I'd side with Bloomberg...it isn't just the money (although that's reason enough), I just don't believe it is a city or even governmental responsibility to provide such subsidies.

PROTOTYPE_SUI

typical politicians wasting money on there own interest and not tot he benefit f the people

follow me http://twitter.com/PROTOTYPE_SUI

Procrastination_Xtravaganza

@ facebook profile commenter,

Where exactly does city &/or governmental assistance end in your opinion? Should subsidies for HIV positive people be eliminated? Housing subsidies across the board eliminated?

It's unclear whether you are against helping in-need people with housing entirely (low income, violent situation, disabled, fire/natural disaster),..or against helping people specifically affected with HIV/AIDS with housing, because I'm not sure you realize that they aren't mutually exclusive.

Wealthy, healthy people with HIV don't get free city housing just because they have the disease, and to speculate that people engage in risky behavior without worry, because in their minds they get an apartment as a free gift with infection is ludicrous.

While I agree that medications have bred some complacency, saying that subsidized housing has done the same is a stretch, and disrespectful to people who really need that help.

Also noted in the post is the $41 million that Bloomberg has earmarked (still need over 200m more to complete) for park creation on Governors Island, a shithole with no residents and a few city workers. Granted, it does need rehabilitation, but a park is considered an amenity, a luxury, and to easily find money for luxuries when people are facing homelessness shows Bloomberg's priorities. If we were down to bare bones budget for real then I could see making tough cuts, but when you look at how the money's spent you see it's just mismanagement.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Rod 2.0 Premium

Rod 2.0 Recommends


  • PrideDating.com, a Relationship-Oriented Gay Dating Site

    The largest gay roommate finder in America

    Rolex Watches

    Blogadsgay
    Blogadsgay
    Blogadsgay
    Blogadsgay

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Search Rod2.0


    Categories

    Media

    Netroots

    Blog powered by Typepad