Re: anti-homeless editorial: At Last, Rules For The Homeless

Theodore Latham (
Tue, 04 Aug 1998 03:29:42 PDT


   I've lived in New York but never been homeless there. But if you're 
homeless in New York, aside from the 8.5 million people inhabiting its 
burroughs and centralized metro area, you got welfare cuts working 
against you, a shortage of food, shelter, and mandatory emergency 
service provider products, and now this. When are the judicial, 
legislative, and executive systems of this country going to realize that 
forcing the homeless to do this and that, will not reduce the amount of 
homeless in need of basic life neccessities, nor will it make them less 
visible to society. If you ask me, all 3 government bodies should, 
concentrate on imposing laws and restricitions on the many factors that 
bring people down to homelessness status in the 1st place. But that's 
only my opinion, and not to be taken as the final solution to 
homelessness. NUFF SAID!


Tedrico Latham

Your Informative Homelessness Resource Link!
P.O. Box 514 Rich Square, NC 27869 (252)539-4228

Tom Boland <> wrote:
>FWD  New York Post EDITORIAL -- August 2, 1998
>Two years after they were first enacted, City Hall has
>finally been cleared to start enforcing tough state rules -
>rules allowing homeless people who refuse to abide by a
>few reasonable and humane requirements to be evicted
>from shelters.
>A five-judge Appellate Division panel unanimously
>dismissed complaints against regulations promulgated in
>1996 by Gov. Pataki and the state Department of Social
>Services. These established, for the first time, eligibility
>standards and requirements for those allowed into
>homeless shelters.
>The rules are pretty simple: Officials can eject from a
>shelter for 30 days or longer any homeless person who
>twice willfully refuses to attend drug-treatment or
>job-training programs, who refuses to keep children in
>school or who refuses to search for permanent housing.
>Predictably, Legal Aid Society lawyers immediately filed
>suit to block the regulations, calling them "vindictive."
>Now the Appellate Division has thrown out the case,
>calling the state rules "rationally related" to the "legitimate
>objective" of ensuring that "temporary housing resources
>are not squandered on those having no real need of
>Just how common-sense are these regulations? Well,
>even Judge Chihuahua herself - Helen Freedman, the
>state Supreme Court Justice who has seemingly dedicated
>her life to advancing the proposition that City Hall owes a
>taxpayer-funded apartment to anybody who demands one
>- upheld their validity. In toto. That's like Hillary Clinton
>nominating one of Ken Starr's legal briefs for a Pulitzer
>Although they've been state policy for two years now,
>the DSS regulations have never been enforced in the five
>boroughs - unlike every other municipality in New York.
>That's because City Hall agreed to hold off any evictions
>while the Legal Aid lawsuit was being litigated. (That
>sure doesn't sound vindictive to us.)
>But thanks to Presiding Justice Alfred Lerner & Co., the
>legal circus has almost certainly drawn to a close. Which
>means that it should now be crystal clear to all - including
>the homeless and their advocates - that City Hall is no
>longer in the free-lunch business.
>In short, those receiving taxpayer-funded largess have to
>meet some basic personal responsibilities.
>It's about time.
>** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this 
material is
>distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest 
>receiving the included information for research and educational 
purposes. **
>ARCHIVES  <>  read posts to HPN
>TO JOIN  <> or email Tom 

Get Your Private, Free Email at