Posted on 12/06/2019 4:16:06 PM PST by LTC.Ret
“despicable human being”
—
They got the right actor to play him then!
:D
Thanks, interesting article.
Seven BILLION surplus? Whoever wrote that article must have been taking hallucinogens OR s/he's just plain NUTS.
“While we may not fo that far I can see Texas heading in that direction after Trump reshapes the supreme court.”
—
Even with Trump appointees I’m not sure it would fly very far, I suspect festering/freezing cells could be considered “cruel and unusual” by the courts.
Exactly! The NDP government in BC sent a large portion of Vancouver’s homeless to all the smaller towns around the province before Expo 86 for two reasons:
First, get them out of Sight of all the tourists about to arrive, and
Second, dilute the farmer, rancher and small town working folks’ vote with the socialist’s core constituency!
Today the problem in the lower east side of Vancouver is worse than ever, but hey, there are lots of socialist voters in rancher towns now. Yay commies.
Wouldn’t it be most logical to send these people to the wealthiest neighborhoods, where the people and government are best equipped to take care of them?
That was for the coke, fags and illegals.
Newark NJ is supposed to be suing NYC for sending their gibsmedats here; they pay a years’ rent in advance, but the people find themselves in sh!tty apartments that can’t meet minimum standards for occupancy. I believe they can’t get back into the NYC shelters, either (their spots have already been taken). This has been in the news here for a year or so, but recently returned - probably because it became clear that NYC was continuing the practice.
When that year’s rent is used up, the landlords will never be able to evict these people; NY is just passing NJ (and other states) its “hot potatoes”.
Shackle them to the illegal Mexicans you return to their side of the border.
NYC is being sued by Newark, NJ, for sending so many homeless people there, a city that is struggling with its own problems of poverty and homelessness. The rents are lower, that is NYC’s main objective: get them out of high-rent NYC.
Yes I forgot to mention the one-time-only year’s rent payment. Then what? Anybody’s guess.
The long-term facilities for these people were closed, in NY at least, to patch up the operating budget with one-time sales of the real estate.
They were moved to viable neighborhoods under a plan called New York/New York. Translation: The whole state pays for it but only New York City has to take the people. A sure-fire way to get it through the state legislature.
Each facility holds up to 90 people, and the “residents” of the facility (don’t ever call them patients) have to be three things: homeless, addicted, and crazy. And don’t ever call them crazy.
That’s interesting; I can certainly see why cities want to pawn them off on others.
The one-year rent payment reminded me of a scam Obama tried early in his presidency; he wanted to hire a bunch of teachers, with a similar arrangement - the federal government would pay the salaries for the first year or two, then the municipalities (or whoever paid the teachers - in my state of NJ, it is done at the local level through property taxes) would be on the hook. Many areas wisely rejected the offer; it would create a situation in which it would be difficult to throw off the additional costs that were certain to rise when the federal dollars stopped flowing. Just a short-term fix with a longer-term financial bomb hidden within it.
Because all they care about is the next election. It’s a disease.
If they get dumped in your community, the community should buy them bus tickets back to where they came from.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.