Our Mayor Derailed His Chances Of A "New" Year!

Many of us make New Year's resolutions based on things we need to do more of in the coming year or habits we need to kick. The list of "resolutions" usually includes healthier life styles, being the "best version of ourselves we can be," and conquering those financial demons that left us flooded with debt.

When a Mayor's reputation crashes...

Of course, somewhere in the midst of trying to accomplish our "resolutions," some of us lose sight of what matters and we lose the motivation needed to follow through with our commitments to "self-improvement."

Whether you're sticking to your self-fulfilling promises for 2017 so far, there's always living proof that you don't even need to bother making resolutions in the first place. Bill de Blasio is approaching his final weeks and months as Mayor of New York City. If there's anyone who needs to be "the best version of himself" it's de Blasio! The Mayor, who rarely shows up on time -if he shows up at all to an important event/catastrophe - needs to look at his reputation and how he's been prioritizing his time. If you ask me, 2016 wasn't a good year for the Lurch-looking Mayor and he couldn't even start 2017 off on the right foot!

After more than 100 commuters were injured on the LIRR train derailment at the Atlantic Terminal in Brooklyn on January 4th, the slow-witted Mayor - who's been known to oversleep and skip attending important events all over the city - decided he didn't "need" to be at the scene of the horrific rush-hour disaster. For a politician who has one of the worst approval ratings in the city's recent history, he's the last person who should be absent from an accident of this magnitude simply because it doesn't "fall under his jurisdiction" and because the injuries sustained by passengers "wasn't serious enough."

Come on de Blasio! Do you know how many of those riders - carried out of the train station on gurneys by paramedics - voted for YOU? What's your real excuse? Are you tired of carrying out the responsibilities that comes with being the Mayor?

According to reports, our sorry excuse for a Mayor left the responsibility of the derailment to Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Why? Because he's impatient for someone else to take over? There's no excuse for de Blasio's absence other than his laziness and poor personal choices. To say you're not going to the scene of an accident that's the center of scrutiny because "no one died" is the coldest response I've heard from a politician following a tragedy. If only ONE person died, would he say, "I didn't need to go - one death doesn't warrant an appearance"?

I have a challenge for New Yorkers when it comes to making New Years resolutions. Be more vigilant and selective when choosing a Mayor! Don't re-elect de Blasio and his poor ethics! New Yorkers should resolve to support a leader who attends all the events they possibly can - especially accident scenes and locations of mass chaos.
Stop picking a leader solely based on their party affiliation and whether or not you think they will "help minorities." Bitter Bill hasn't shown much compassion for his city in the past year - and right about now, ANYONE who runs against him seems like a better pick!

Okay, so our lanky city leader skipped an important hearing with state lawmakers last year that focused on the renewal of HIS control over city schools. Big deal!...
Okay, so he didn't think attending Goundhog Day 2016 was a big deal even though it's commonplace for mayors to be part of this annual tradition. No big whoop!


However, he was more than happy to help unveil the city's LinkNYC internet kiosks at the beginning of 2016. Did he think that public launch/appearance to reveal flimsy technology was enough to cover him for the rest of the year?

How many more events will Bozo Bill skip before his last day as Mayor? Not only does his absence echo a leader who doesn't care, it echoes an individual whose priorities aren't well thought out.

I did meet the Mayor informally a few times - once at a press conference in Canarsie where he thanked the janitorial staff at I.S. 211 for getting the building back in order after the basement was flooded from Hurricane Sandy in 2012. Sure, he sat down with custodians and maintenance workers - treated them all to sandwiches and tried to be like "one of the locals". But there's something about a guy who's constantly late or absent that can't be fixed by minor appearances.

Please, if there are any resolutions New Yorkers should make, it's to improve our quality of life by being more involved in the political process and choosing a Mayor with a strong set of values who has a vested interest in being there for citizens - no matter how small or big the event may be.

De Blasio's ratings aren't going to get back on track. Perhaps he's better off retiring to the yard so a new fleet of leaders can emerge out of the tunnel...

We're "Oversaturated" With Ignorance - Not Group Homes!

At every civic meeting I've covered for the Canarsie Courier over the years, there's been no shortage of protests against group homes and private residences made into legitimate living spaces for the developmentally disabled. Before I get into the reasons why I think people in our community are ignorant about who their potential neighbors will be, let's consider the fact that this is a liberal society in which we live! New York is a state made up of Democrats and politicians who legalized gay marriage and "banned the box" so that "former" criminals are not discriminated against on job applications. In a community where Democrats rule and there is acceptance of all different kinds of people and life styles - and helping those less fortunate - it's a shock and shame that residents are so adamant about turning away the mentally disabled.

Hey you - the one who voted for Councilman Alan Maisel and State Senator Roxanne Persaud!!! Did you know that even though you support this political leader, you're not listening to their beliefs and you're not accepting the reality - that developmentally disabled residents are NOT truly dangerous - nor do they pose any specific threat!!! At a few recent meetings, politicians tried to tell their constituents that new group homes coming to Canarsie - there are nearly a handful in the works - are under the auspices of New York State and the males who will be living in those houses will be monitored. 

Would you rather live next to a crime-ridden drug house?

With all of the facilities that exist in our city for those who are developmentally disabled - and also violent - do you think they'd let these individuals occupy a private space in a residential community? I've yet to attend a meeting where someone - or a group of residents - protests a home that's been up and running for years. I have not seen a report about any home where the occupants are harassing people in the streets or where a rape has taken place and people do not feel safe. If these stories/complaints are going unpublished, whose fault is that? When have the police responded repeatedly to calls of disturbances at group homes?

Let's get real! The complaints that surface at meetings are about mentally "healthy" people who drive cars, own property and bother their neighbors INTENTIONALLY! Someone shady is parked in a common driveway and you're "sure there's a drug deal going down..." Are THOSE hooligans better than the developmentally ill residents who moved into the two-family home down the block?? Probably NOT - those living in the group home have a curfew and they've got state certified officials making sure those people don't leave the house to stir trouble in the community.

And when residents complain that the value of their homes will plummet as a result of the number of group homes here, the ignorance on THAT level seems insurmountable too! Forget about the real estate market, crime rates (due to "normal people" committing crimes) and other quality of life factors - many think a group of safe residents is to blame for the depreciation of their property!

If you truly agree with the Democrats YOU voted for - the ones who are trying to persuade the community that the handful of males living in these private homes are safe - you wouldn't make noise just because you think someone with Down Syndrome is plotting to harass your family or...do what??? How are these individual more dangerous than the neighbor you've been complaining about who hosts illegal parties where guns are allowed to be brought on the premises? C'mon - you had NO say in THOSE shady neighbors moving in and you should consider yourself lucky that it's a required advisory process for the community to know about group homes coming to your block!

Also, if someone told you that a gay couple - who just got married, with their three adopted children - was moving in right next door to you, would you have the same attitude??? Would you fear for your family then? What about Muslim families moving into the community? Are you secretly opposed to them building a life here or do you have reservations about that too? You're not going to bring THAT discriminatory opinion to a community meeting, right???

In my opinion, this community is discriminating against the disabled and fearing the unknown when there are SO MANY OTHER people moving into our community who rouse suspicion and controversy every day! Sometimes, it's the "hard working" homeowners - those who are mentally capable of knowing what's right from wrong -  who move onto our blocks and shake things up for the worst! Sadly, the developmentally disabled who haven't even moved into the community have NO idea that you don't want them here...How must that feel to be unwanted and discriminated against in a "caring and quaint community" you haven't stepped foot in yet?

The only quality of life issue residents should be worried about - if ANY - is sanitary and traffic conditions outside those homes. Will there be extra or private garbage pick up required? Will modes of transportation to and from the homes infringe on neighbors - and how will long-term traffic/parking be impacted on that block? 

So while residents say we're "oversaturated" with group homes and that they should put more of them in "white communities" (hey - there's a racist cocktail for you to drink up!), think about all the "normal functioning" individuals around you - and think about what justifies your opposition. Whether you'd rather live next to a party-hosting, gun-trafficking gang member instead of someone with a developmental problem who is quiet, safe and watched by a caretaker 24/7, good luck accepting people who are different than you and thanks for making our community oversaturated with ignorance!

Violent Times Call For An End To The Carnage Carnival

Imagine that you throw a huge party every year...A special BBQ or an annual family get together that includes months and weeks of preparations. Maybe you feel so good about the event that you decide to invite some of your co-workers - they're like family!! OK, so a few people who were invited gave you a hard time - always stirring problems and arguing over food servings or who should help with the cleanup. 

You ban those few "bad seeds" from the party - inviting some new and exciting revelers to your special function...Those new people wind up practicing some of the same poor social habits thing- and then your regular guests - the ones who are well behaved - are frustrated to the point where they become violent and it's not a celebration of anything... It becomes more of a social experiment, seeing who can make it through your shindig without raising hell! 

After a few years of senseless planning and headaches, you decide not to throw your party any more. Instead, you safely visit your friends and family at their house and lay the hectic "celebration" days to rest...

Unfortunately, the same scenario seems to be playing out when it comes to the West Indian Day Parade - now called the New York  Caribbean Carnival Parade (or as I coined it the Carnage Carnival)- but namely J'Ouvert, the celebration leading up to the colorful parade attended by thousands of New Yorkers.  Nothing will stop the guns from blazing and nothing will stop those few violent bad guys from stirring problems at an event that is supposed to bring people together instead of tearing them apart and sending them to the hospital.

The two teens who were shot and killed during the early morning party on Monday, September 5th, probably didn't surmise that this would be their last parade. As if last year's bloodbath, which resulted in the death of Gov. Andrew Cuomo's aide Carey Gabay, wasn't enough, more violent hoodlums decided to rouse another round of tragedy at this year's festivities. WHY?

I wholeheartedly agree that cancelling J'Ouvert is a MUST for our city. The NYPD will never be prepared adequately - or equipped with enough man power - to handle the violence that precedes the Caribbean Carnage Carnival. 

As I've questioned in prior columns about this parade of bloodshed, have you ever seen a more violent gathering during a celebration in the city? Why is this one of the ONLY events in our city where guns make more appearances than politicians? 

The one question I keep asking - to no one in particular - is how are the events at J'Ouvert different from terror attacks like the ones that took place in France in November 2015? How are these crowd shootings in our city different than the ones that take place in a movie theater, mall or house of worship in a small suburban town? Let's not bring up black-on-black crime when we can also say James Holmes committed white-on-white crime when he killed 12 people and injured 70 during that Colorado movie theater shooting in 2012. Someone opens fire with no mercy and no regard for human life...PERIOD!

Regardless of color, nationality, background or age, someone who carries an illegal weapon with them to a function or meeting place that's supposed to be peaceful, inviting and productive for those in attendance has clear intentions to ruin the day with violence by endangering thousands of innocent people. 

Let's get real - asking those thugs who bring guns to J'Ouvert every year to "please stop"....please "leave your weapons at home"...It's an irrational request being asked of irrational individuals who haven't been stopped - and won't be stopped - by a wall of police officers.

Cancelling J'Ouvert - and possibly the entire parade - would not only eliminate gunmen taking to the streets on this planned day, it would save the city millions of dollars on not just the basic security - but beefed up security the city paid for this year as well. In my opinion, the cost of additional officers at the parade was a waste of tax payers' money and a waste of NYPD deployment. Those officers - reassigned from other precincts to cover parade detail - could have been in their own command keeping those neighborhoods safe.  

Unless someone can cough up enough money and resources to place hundreds of metal detectors in and around the parade, as if it's an airport or city building, the celebration should NOT go on and the open invitation to gangsters should no longer be announced. They're probably going to go bullet crazy in the confines of their own community anyway! Keeping these home-grown terrorists who have irrational vendettas off the streets is impossible. Doesn't the NYPD know this by now?

No one likes when the bad guys rain on their parade - but a hail of bullets storming at revelers every year should be enough of a reason to call it quits.

Some Men Can't Wean Themselves Off Of A Bad Reputation

Okay - enough already with the perverse, tongue-and-cheek headlines about disgraced politico Anthony Weiner and his cockamamie shenanigans! We get it, women all over have seen the likes of him...being testy when it comes to showing off who he really is. Truth be told, Weiner is just another man who can't keep his goods to himself and starves for attention from women other than his wife. On a human level, he's no different than any other man who stray or go to irrational lengths to get a rush through social media.

Former Canarsie Congressman Anthony Weiner at TJ Club/2010.

On a parental level, though, he's more than just a "disgrace" for showing an image of his child next to him in a provocative photo that went viral a couple of weeks ago. What kind of man - especially with his status and already maimed reputation - continues to practice unethical behavior and then proceeds to include their child in the act? As if the first batch of inappropriate photos being released a couple of years ago wasn't enough, he was ready for another round of immoral behavior!

From far away, New Yorkers had an admiration for Weiner when he was Congressman. As a strong and community-oriented Democrat, Weiner once represented a large part of southeast Brooklyn, parts of Queens and my small Canarsie community. He visited the Thomas Jefferson (TJ) Democratic Club many times - speaking about improvements and budgets...and, you know, the usual political banter.

I could have formally introduced myself to him - I reported on a town hall meeting in February 2010 at the TJ Club in Canarsie where Weiner simplified the ideas behind President Obama's Affordable Healthcare Act. He tried to make residents feel more at ease with all of those healthcare terms - and proving he can bring his bigshot self to a small neighborhood where constituents and fellow politicians/Democrats were honored to be in his presence. Hell, even I thought - way after the meeting - that maybe I should have asked someone to snap a photo of me with the "prestigious" Congressman, who wound up running for Mayor years later. Oh, only NOW I think about the jokes I would have made if I DID get a photo of myself with Weiner...

While I'm not a Democrat, I thought Weiner was an excellent public speaker. He was lively, engaging and animated when he spoke to his constituents. I remember him pacing the front of the TJ Club room - using his hands and facial expressions to capture the essence of whatever could be plaguing residents at the time.

Weiner was always making appearances in the community - trying to pull through when it came to encouraging the state to allocate funds so Canarsie Pier could be rehabilitated. Yes..he was a good man - an upstanding political figure - and the way he addressed the public was clear that he had a strong set of values, as we want to think many politicians do...

But after this last stint, it's clear that Weiner not only lacks the values it takes to lead a family, he lacks the reasoning and rational thought of a normal-functioning person who makes poor decisions...over and over again!!

The general public may like to think that a political figure's personal life and poor personal decisions have nothing to do with their ability to pass legislation and do what's best for the communities they represent. So, they know the "law"...so, they know how balance budgets and deal with agencies all over the country. Does this plethora of knowledge and experience stop them from ruining their reputation by practicing horrible social practices?

In my opinion, Weiner is just as dirty as a politician who accepted a bribe, laundered money, or enrolled themselves in a scandal without caring that they would some day suffer the consequences and get caught.

On second thought he is WORSE than a dirty politician - he included his innocent child in a perverted photo without ANY thought the this was immoral, mentally and psychologically abnormal.

How can we trust a man to make decisions for us politically if he can't make the right decisions for himself?

Not only should the Administration for Child Services (ACS) investigate to the fullest extent, he shouldn't be given rights to see his son at all. As part of his long-term therapy, he should also be banned, indefinitely, from creating social media accounts which allow him to exercise his unhealthy sexual behavior. It takes a certain - special - type of sicko to include their child in an unfaithful escapade of that nature.

He'll never be able to wean himself off of the reputation he's built. Screw up once...maaaaybe - maaaybe he was just having a little fun that first time. But repeatedly abnormal behavior- and obviously behavior that includes your child - goes beyond "needing some help."

We can also say whatever we want about Huma Abedin - maybe she should have left him the first time he showed the public who he really is. Maybe she thought he learned his lesson by being an embarrassment to his family the first time. She's like many us women who stand by our men after a slip-up and truly believe that the NEXT time will be different! Good for her for showing this indecent pervert that he'll have to fend for himself when he answers to authorities.

Last Friday, the Daily News reported that the ACS would "probe Weiner" about the awful photo he publicized of him and his son. Embarrassingly, the letter from the ACS about the investigation was sent to his mother's house instead. Guess there's no better way to say "Way to go mom for raising a son you thought was a decent human being!!! Joke is on you!!!"

Whatever happens to Weiner and whatever path his life takes, he's deflated any chance of redeeming his reputation. Even after meeting and seeing the great political feats Weiner can accomplish as an elected official, there's not going to be any happy endings for this pol!

All You Need To Travel Is A Dollar Van And A Dream!

Many of us enjoy doing simple things in public that are illegal. Whether it's jaywalking or littering - it can be a minor day-to-day activity that could cause an accident or maybe even a fire. We don't think about the consequences of the minuscule actions we take to make our lives easier.

Don't get in that van!!!!

So what - you took a dollar van from the junction at Brooklyn College to get to Kings Plaza Mall. So what, you hitched a ride on some mysterious black/white jitney for a couple of bucks (is a dollar van really JUST $1 any more?) to Downtown Brooklyn because you're sick of waiting for the city's above ground mass transit system. So they're illegal - BIG DEAL! You'd do anything to get to your destination and make your life easier! Right?

What you don't care about is the fact that, not only are those dollar vans illegal, they are dangerous to those traveling inside and outside of the vehicle. Even if you do care and you're still hailing these cryptic-looking monsters, you're putting more fuel on the fire to keep them operating and posing a risk to the public. 

To those commuters who give up waiting for that LEGAL form of transportation - YES, it's YOUR fault that there are massive collisions and accidents as a result of dollar van traffic. You don't care that the dollar van in which YOU'RE hitching a ride just cut off someone on the road and now they've slammed into another driver who hit and killed two pedestrians at a major intersection? You don't care that the dollar van driver you just trusted with your life has NO insurance - so if you and the other passengers are injured, you're SCREWED?

You know the business phrase "supply and demand..." In my opinion,  dollar vans are out in full force - despite the city cracking down on their practices - because many commuters are utilizing them instead of protesting their illegal operations. Those vans are not only illegal because they're not licensed by the Department of Transportation, chances are the drivers do not have insurance that will cover the number of passengers hopping aboard. Forget about all of the moving violations practiced by dollar van drivers! There have been so many reports of hit-and-runs, accidents and deaths as a result of these careless drivers who just want to make some money - and take money away from the city. 

Furthermore, why would anyone want to jump in these vehicles that bottleneck at major intersections and LOOK like a creepy van that the A-Team members may have found a kidnapping victim inside? 

Let's get real! These aren't legitimate "shuttle buses" with their own safely positioned stops away from mainstream traffic. The minute one of these hellish-looking bad boys swoops into a designated bus stop to pick up a passenger, it reminds me of a scene from a crime show - where the driver is waiting for an accomplice inside to grab the innocent passenger, knock them unconscious and shove them inside of a huge laundry bag to be held for ransom. 

I recently saw a woman waiting for a city bus along Flatbush Avenue in the Flatlands section of our community. She asked me if I saw a bus pass, and I said yes. She looked stressed...But alas! Here comes the monstrous, black van with NO legal transportation license number showing and a couple of shady looking fellows peeking out the tinted windows. Someone from the inside slid the door open, she got in and then the door quickly closed with a slam - as if some shakedown were going to occur and this woman was part of their hoodlum hijinx. Did anyone in that van have drugs? Weapons? Alcohol? 

Who cares! When you make it to the mall in under 10 minutes because you're just that impatient, rules and regulations go out those tinted windows!

Another reality we can't ignore is that these dollar van drivers KNOW they're going to get business. For the most part, it looks like they're accommodating residents in lower-income communities who don't want to pay for a MetroCard or get on/wait for a crowded bus. 

How about using Uber? Still too costly to get into a vehicle with an operator who's licensed and insured? COME ON! Risking ones life by using illegal transportation can prevent someone from reaching their destination altogether. What if the van you hitched a ride in is stolen? What if the police pull over that driver and you never make it to that baby shower in East Flatbush?

When the hit-and-run incident happened by Kings Plaza Mall in early August, a dollar van was the culprit of the unnecessary tragedy. Reports stated that the driver had no license and after striking two people, left the scene. This is what most dollar van drivers do when they've caused an accident - because they're NOT law-abiding citizens who care about the safety of others!

Local precincts can do whatever they want to "crack down" on these  drivers, issue tickets/fines/violations... The public should not only STOP using these vans at all costs, but they should also notify authorities about these drivers instead of getting in for a ride! By getting in one of these shady transports, you're supporting their business and giving them a reason to keep operating. 

Obviously, I would rather walk five miles to get to my destination than climb into a creepy looking van driven illegally by someone who has no regard for the lives of others. Stop using this mode of transportation...stop these money-hungry drivers from operating and save your dollar for a safer commute! You could possibly save someone's life, not to mention your own!

Suspending An Idea That Gives Educators More Work

When I was 13 years old, I was "suspended" from Canarsie's Bildersee Junior High School. Sadly, I was going through my adolescent years - the most tender time of growing up during which I felt like there was no place that was "right" for me - mentally, emotionally and academically.

What did I do?

Who fails? Students or schools?

One spring school day I sent a letter to my guidance counselor, claiming that I "felt like hurting myself" and that my middle school peers didn't understand me and I was "frustrated" at home. In the 1990s, school officials didn't seem to take "self-inflicting threats" too seriously. Of course they do now - which gives more responsibility and accountability to the Department of Education (DOE) to recognize at-risk students. Even in my younger days, self-inflicted threats meant that any student waving red flags about their psychological growth - or hindrances -  was taken seriously. Subsequently, they were ordered to be removed from school until deemed "safe to be in the company of themselves and/or others."

Was it a mistake to be honest with my guidance counselor that I felt "depressed"  and as if I didn't fit in? It was honestly NOT how I really felt - maybe I was just sad or upset over something and reacted in an extreme manner. However, it must have been a blessing in disguise - because school officials suspended me for a week and I had to seek remediation and be evaluated for my  seriously "disturbing thoughts." 

I didn't get into ANY fights with my peers...I didn't inflict injuries on myself/others or show ANY repetitive signs of what today's psychologists would call "unhealthy at-risk behavior." I was considered an average student with minimal absences who had a small group of friends. Yet my behavior wasn't monitored by school officials - they jumped on the signal and simply pulled me out of the building for a week because of an empty "threat" I made that wasn't too specific in nature.

Hey - a week off from school?? Great!

All I had to do was go to the Kings County psychiatric unit and explain that I'm having "a mid-teen-life crisis" and needed some "time off from school" to get my ducks in order??? Forget about planning outfits for five days and forget about having to do homework!!! Sign me up for this "suspension" thing!!! Not being around a bunch of annoying kids in a classroom all day??

COUNT ME IN!

And what did I do during my suspension - other than get mauled on the phone by "counselors" and "academic advisors" until I was reevaluated and deemed safe to return to Bildersee? Waking up late every day was a treat - and not smelling that God awful school lunch for a week did wonders for my nose!

No - I didn't need "disciplinary action" or rehabilitative practices. I didn't need to be "punished" by being removed from school completely. But who was I to argue with getting a school-mandated "break" that did little in terms of holding me back from my studies? I still graduated on time and - as you can see - turned into a fine, successful and productive adult who just had a few road blocks to barrel through as many teens do.

Of course, nowadays they've reformed what constitutes being "suspended" and, according to the DOE, any suspension must include alternative instruction and not just removing the disturbed child from the school to save their peers from eminent danger.

Mayor Bill de Blasio is once again practicing his liberal approach to academics by banning suspensions for children in kindergarten through second grade. Really? When you have a violent child who is disruptive and infringing on their peers' rights to learn, removing them from the CLASSROOM - not the school entirely - is an action that needs to be taken responsibly.

I contend that schools are now historically spending more money on programs to combat/reform violent children and their disruptive behavior. Trying to figure out why a child can't grasp the concept of conflict-resolution and what their mental state may be takes a lot more than a suspension or two during the school year. Is all that money changing the generation and quality of students our schools produce?

I didn't think it was fair that I was  removed from school when there were physically dangerous students lurking the hallways on a daily basis. There were students who were suspended at least once a month for starting physical fights and bullying to the point where productive students couldn't focus - and when a brawl broke out and the dean/principal had to be called to calm down or remove the repeat offender, that was more time taken away from our studies. But they let the trouble makers stay in the same classrooms and come back for more.

Why does de Blasio want to keep those students in the classroom while trying to get down to the "underlying" issue of their anger? Some students need to know that if they can't be civil, there will be repercussions - and more than just "tough love."

Let's get real - no matter how young a child is, they NEED a strict set of rules, values, morals and disciplinary actions to guide them towards being productive teens/adults. To make excuses for them - and their parents - is giving them a pass to act in whatever manner they chose with minimal consequences.

Those who are violent or have problems which can't be solved by sitting in a classroom all day need to be placed in another environment where they can't infringe on their peers' right to learn. As the DOE connotes, there should be alternative instruction within the school perimeters. 

Being sensitive to children who will feel "different" and ostracized if they are pulled from the classroom is justified. YES, these children ARE different - they are not productive, they are disruptive and a possible distraction. They may also suffer from mental problems which are exacerbated by remaining in the same learning environment with other students who do not know how to communicate with them effectively.

We also can't deny that parents play the main role in this "plan" as the artery of their childrens' behaviors. School-disciplinary actions are only temporary - and we're paying for public school programs which are trying to "fix" and "reform" children who aren't recognized by their parents as being "at-risk." Many parents are in denial and leave it to the school to raise their children. Is this what de Blasio wants? For school officials to baby the younger students and presume that there are just a few "bad seeds" who have to outgrow their childhood?

Parents should be suspended too!! If their child is behaving extremely dangerously, parents should be mandated to take off from work and join their child in school for a week to be part of the counseling/discipline process - and not just attend "workshops." Adults are summonsed to jury duty - they should be summonsed to suspension leave and - along with their children - re-learn how to socialize and identify mental health problems.

Obviously, I'm not an educator and I have no background working with the DOE or its academic advisors. I'm the one looking into the snow globe from the outside after having one harmless incident shatter my reputation during my teen years in junior high school.

Whatever problems students face and however their "suspensions" are delegated, literally handling our troubled children with "kid gloves" doesn't solve the deep-rooted issues they face. There's "school-reform" and "student-reform." Let's not confuse the two...

Get Those Nice Homes Ready For The City's "Homeless"!

Once again, I feel the urge to vent about the city's growing homeless problem. I've already made it clear that I don't think many "homeless" individuals are capable of gaining their independence because most of them aren't mentally stable. If they were employed, successful and had rational thought, why would they spend their life in a shelter if God forbid something happened to their home?

Last week, amNewYork reported that Penn Station was one of the most popular places for the homeless to camp out ("It's a Penn Predicament" Monday, April 24, 2016). Yes, they'd all rather sit on a cold hard floor and bunk out in a dirty and dangerous train hub ALL DAY instead of staying in a shelter and obtaining help finding employment.

The perfect bed and breakfast for a bum! 

I have to admit, I've seen more homeless people on the streets and trains in the last year than I have in the past decade. I now travel to the city for work during the week and there is an unnecessary number of homeless commuters - sleeping with their enormous carts of "belongings" in black garbage bags. Some mornings, homeless individuals are sprawled out across an entire seat, so those who are actually going to WORK to earn a LIVING can't even sit down!!!

Let's get real! The homeless can complain about the horrible conditions in shelters - that they're "restrictive" "unsanitary" and "dangerous." Not to be cold, but who the hell is telling them to spend the rest of their lives in a homeless shelter to begin with? Of course a shelter is not meant to be a luxurious place to live!
In my opinion, shelters serve as TEMPORARY and voluntary housing for those who need to get back on their feet. Shelters are NOT four-star hotels or even low-income residences that provide anything "comforting" to its occupants.

The suggested solutions include building more facilities and offering more career and health services.

Really?

So the man who smells like garbage and human feces - who's been riding the L train for two hours (in comparison to someone like yourself who took money out of their hard-earned paycheck to ride the rails to work every day) hasn't been offered a chance to turn his life around? That "homeless" man feels "safer" on the train, in a station or in a public park than in a shelter? Obviously, this lifestyle is a better option for him than training to get a real job and affording his own apartment where he can sleep in private every night, right?

When amNewYork noted in the report - in their photo caption - that many "homeless feel the conditions in train terminals are better than those in city shelters," it sounded pathetic! How does this look to thousands of tourists who want to see the best that our city has to offer? We can't keep homeless people off the streets and we can't reform them into better citizens. What kind of nonsense is THAT?

Some advocates and even police officers feel that homeless people be left where they are - unless they are viewed as a "danger to the public" or are committing crimes - there's "not much that can be done."

Really?

Sorry to say this, but in our liberal society of letting everything and everyone "be," why wait til that homeless person harasses someone for money - or worse - pushes someone onto the train tracks, exposes himself or urinates in public? Why can't we accept that many homeless individuals need to be psychiatrically evaluated and placed somewhere where they will not harass the public? Come on - NO normal person wants to spend their entire day - every day - bundled up in filthy blankets sleeping on the floor of the Port Authority terminal!

Consider this - now that plans to make affordable housing available in East New York have been approved by City Council, shouldn't some of the homeless - at least in Brooklyn - look forward to having more housing options? Hey - what's REALLY "affordable?" What percentage of the homeless will actively ask for help applying for this housing?

And - hey - what percentage of the homeless are functional enough to know what the hell the Affordable Housing Act actually means??? Did any of them give feedback -- since they're so concerned about finding a permanent place to reside that's "safe" and "clean"? Oh no, that's okay - they're quite comfortable bunking out in public in a dirty little corner with no responsibilities, no bills -- and hey - no landlord!

Stop the pity party and stop making excuses for what needs to be done to solve the city's homeless issue! The homeless need more of this....more of that...

HELLO! The city simply needs more lawmakers tough enough to take on these derelicts and their dirty ways!