Fingerprint and Drug Test Public Housing Residents?

Rather than try to lift their dignity and help them provide a safer environment for their families...

Bob, that's just liberal gobbledygook, and you know it. How well have government attempts to "lift dignity" worked in the past?

I'm not sure you can even show me that a majority of residents would be against these measures.

I'm also not sure how drug testing, and fingerprinting, which happen every day, to law abiding citizens, creates a hostile environment.

I can understand a resistance to "stop-and-frisk". Aren't these less physically intrusive measures, that are common in our society?

And, frankly, who gives a shit if people don't like them. I don't like all kinds of laws. People don't like seat belt laws, or speed limits.

Again, can we focus for a minute on whether or not they work?

If they don't work, fine. Don't implement them. But if they do, let's judge them on the merits.

 

What crosses the line? Drug testing? Fingerprinting? Both? Why?

On what basis are you questioning its effectiveness? How are your determining the cost? What are the costs associated with not having these, or similar, programs in place?

 

There was white flight and a decline in the tax base in New York, starting in the late 40s. The city was near bankruptcy in the 70s, which inspired the Daily News headline of "Ford to City: Drop Dead".

 

I like my idea better. No drug testing of recepients, but if you get a drug conviction, your name goes into a Social Services database and you lose whatever benefits you already have and you are ineligible for benefits for five years from date of conviction.

This way, not everyone gets treated like a drug offender just because they are getting Social Services, but their actions have consequences if they do get caught.

 

Right. True.

And, the City has been governed very differently for the last 20 years.

White flight has been reversed. People are moving to the city. Foreigners are snapping up high priced housing. Parents from across the country are sending their kids to attend school at places like Columbia, NYU, and Fordham.

Wall St. firms, which built huge trading floors in Connecticut and New Jersey, are bringing jobs back into the City, because that's where their potential employees want to live.

Families are staying, and housing to accommodate them has been built.

The City is so vastly different from the 70s, it's not even funny.

Take a look at the Times multi-media story highlighting the changes in the City under Bloomberg. It's dramatic.

 

They have consequences if they are convicted, in the plan you just spelled out, not it they are "caught".

And, with no means of "catching" anyone, it's useless.

 

The drug testing. It seems like an invasion of privacy. You're essentially having to give (potential) evidence of criminal behavior without anyone having any warrent or cause. That bugs me. It might just be a thing for me. I'd never let a police officer search my place/car/whatever without a warrent. Am I engaging in criminal activity? No. But it's still an invasion without cause. Same deal for the drug testing.

The effectiveness. I have no stats. I tried to make clear that I wasn't making a statement of fact, just giving my stream of consciousness. I question it's effectiveness in terms of cost/benefit because 1) drug tests cost money, 2) even if this works and gets criminals out of the building they're still in the city, so it doesn't likely diminish the cost for police, just shifts the costs around, 3) is likely to have a human cost - people who'd never cause a problem for other residents might get kicked out because of it which imposes a cost without giving any benefit to society, 4) if the goal is to give everyone a safe place to live, this still doesn't accomplish that because, as said in No. 2, it likely just moves the problem to another part of the city, by other people who will now have unsafe places to live.

Again, if you posted stats/evidence of effectiveness that I missed, I'm not debunking that. Just going through a mental exercise of how I see this playing out what what problems this could have. (Which, again, my big argument is this is simply a privacy violation too far. The second paragraph isn't my main objection, just why, even if I ignored that fact, I could still see this struggling to be a net positive for the city).

 

i checked it out.

very impressive. the first slide is a photo of a security guard and homeless people being forced to sign in.

 

The only people who have a problem with that are the people who want to keep IDs out of peoples' hands so they can claim they can't get IDs. And we know why they want to claim people can't get IDs.

 

Totally like this idea. Everything about it.

Only problem then is do DAs plea-bargain drug cases down to things such as disorderly conduct or some other non-drug charge? I'd like something built into the law that stops that practice.

 

Anybody trying to act like this involves some obvious or easy answer is kidding him- or herself. You wanna bar those who've been convicted of a drug offense from receiving any sort of public assistance for X number of years? Fine. But be prepared to tell the recently unemployed mother of a newborn that she's on her own because of that drug conviction on her record from four years ago. You wanna make sure you don't excessively intrude on the privacy/dignity of those leaving in government housing? Fine. But be prepared to explain to the struggling couple with three kids why, since it's so hard to catch a drug dealer/user in the act, their children have to occasionally stumble onto a drug deal just down the hall.

 

You won the lottery by having daddy pay to set you up in life and not worry about papers. Congrats. Maybe you can get a loan to start a business or two, or three.