NYC Mayor Bloomberg Opposes Housing Subsidy for HIV-Positive

New York state's proposed housing subsidy for the HIV-positive has a major foe: Michael Bloomberg. The New York City mayor is urging Gov. David Paterson to veto the bill that would offer greater rent relief to more than 11,000 New York City residents with HIV/AIDS.

The city just can't afford it, the mayor's office tells The New York Times.

The bill would mean that low-income people receiving housing assistance from the city’s H.I.V./AIDS Services Administration would be required to spend no more than 30 percent of their income on rent. Despite the city’s current subsidy, many beneficiaries of the program still spend more than half of their income on rent. The office of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, which sent a memo to senators in January opposing the bill, said that the city would spend $150 million on the program this fiscal year, and that the new measure would cost it an additional 10 percent. Yet paying more toward low-income tenants’ rent would result in fewer evictions and fewer placements in emergency housing, both of which are expensive, according to Senator Tom Duane, the Democrat from Manhattan who sponsored the bill.

Independent analysts calculate the new law would cost the city and state an extra $19 million a year and result in $20 million in annual savings. On the other hand, Bloomberg didn't have a problem finding $41 million for his proposed Governors Island beautification project. Priorities, priorities ...

The bill passed the Assembly by 84 to 54 and the Senate by 42 to 19. During last July's Senate vote, you may recall that Sen. Duane delivered an angry and emotional 3am floor speech reminding people of the horrors of the 1980s AIDS epidemic.

Governor Paterson says he will sign the bill.

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.