Connect with us

Opinion

New York’s deadly revolving door for gun criminals

Published

on

New York’s deadly revolving door for gun criminals

Wonder why shootings have skyrocketed in New York during a pandemic even though overall crime is down? Look no further than the way the politicians have turned the court system into a revolving door.

In an interview this week, NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea blamed the rising gun violence on a Legislature that’s more worried about criminals’ well-being than their victims’.

The 2019 bail “reform” law eliminated cash bail for most non-violent crimes, including some gun-possession cases, and effectively encouraged judges to err in favor of the criminal.

So while gun arrests are higher than ever, Shea says the changes put 90 percent of the arrestees back on the streets.

The NYPD’s year-end crime data show shootings and homicides up drastically from 2019 to 2020. Yet the mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice bragged in May that the city’s jail population is on a continual decline.

Of the 3,793 people arrested on gun charges last year from Jan. 1 to Nov. 30, only 450 remained in jail. Of the released, 247 were accused of a new crime within 60 days. But only 32 of those repeat offenders are in jail.

Mayor de Blasio recognized the connection last February, admitting that the crime jump is almost certainly related to problematic bail reforms.

Even after the courts recover from the current pandemic-driven backlog, Shea warns, shooting numbers won’t drop unless the revolving door ends.

Until then, New York will continue to be an “open door” for the thugs who get off on waving guns around only to walk away with a slap on the wrist.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

Biden’s ‘infrastructure’ plan wages war on the suburban dream

Published

on

Biden’s ‘infrastructure’ plan wages war on the suburban dream

If you saved your money and bought a house in the suburbs, your investment and lifestyle may soon come under attack. The single biggest item in President Biden’s “infrastructure” bill, now being negotiated with Congress, is $213 billion he claims will be used to increase affordable housing. 

What he really wants is to put the federal government in charge of local zoning and to install apartment buildings throughout single-family-home neighborhoods.   

That $213 billion is nearly twice the spending on roads and bridges. It would change towns everywhere and, for many families, torpedo the American Dream of a house with a patch of lawn.

The Biden plan’s backers are hypocrites. Biden himself owns a four-acre lakefront home in upscale Greenville, Del., where there is absolutely no public housing, affordable housing or rentals that accept housing vouchers. And don’t expect any to be built next door to the Bidens.

Biden has always had a passion for stately homes and swanky addresses, even buying a 10,000-square-foot mansion that once belonged to the DuPont family, of 19th-century gunpowder wealth. Not exactly the sort of housing setup you’d associate with “Scranton Joe.”

Vice President Kamala Harris and her husband, meanwhile, own a $5 million gated home on a street of expensive single-family homes in Brentwood, Calif. That’s privilege.  

These politicians love single-family zoning and exclusivity for themselves, but not for the rest of us. When Biden was vice president, Team Obama launched its Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing program in 2015 to ensure that every neighborhood includes housing for low-income buyers and renters and public transportation. Now, as president, Biden would massively expand such efforts.

The United States has a housing shortage. But the answer isn’t to have Washington, DC, strong-arming local decision-makers. That’s what Biden’s plan does. The bill creates a gigantic pot of taxpayer funds to hand out to towns that surrender self-rule. 

That’s a mistake. Local control is vital. Towns can take into account the availability of public transportation, school capacity and proximity to employment. Uncle Sam has no clue.

Advocates for federal control argue that if anyone can afford a neighborhood, everyone should be able to afford it. That means locating apartment clusters even way out on country roads. Bus routes and bus shelters would have to be built. Roads would have to be widened to accommodate traffic, and sewers and water lines would be needed. Say goodbye to country living.

Advocates for abolishing zoning mock suburbanites for worrying about home values. But for most people, their home is their biggest investment, and they waited years to afford it.

Local control allows them to be part of the solution. Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms is pushing to end single-family zoning, while her opponents warn that increasing density would strain schools and transportation and require cutting down the “tree canopy” over the city’s older neighborhoods. Atlantans will decide.  

Other communities are building in-town housing for young working people and seniors, while allowing homeowners to build accessory apartments for extended family or renters. The point is this: Washington doesn’t need to put its big thumb on the scales.  

Biden’s proposals to make housing affordable are laughable. He calls for “putting union building-trade workers to work” to “save families money.” Right, as if mandating union-only labor has ever been a money saver.

Biden is also proposing a first-time home buyer’s tax credit of up to $15,000 that buyers can receive when they purchase, rather than when they file taxes. Paying people to buy homes will push up housing prices, the same way federal college aid and loans have pushed up tuitions. Federal interventions have a way of backfiring.

Biden’s plan won’t expand the American Dream — but kill it.

Betsy McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York.

Continue Reading

Opinion

If AP really didn’t know it shared space with Hamas, why trust its reporting?

Published

on

If AP really didn’t know it shared space with Hamas, why trust its reporting?

After an Israeli airstrike Saturday destroyed a high-rise office tower on the Gaza Strip, the Associated Press, which had offices there for 15 years, complained, claiming it had no idea the building was also home to Hamas.

If it’s true that AP was so unaware — and the evidence suggests it’s unlikely — how can anyone trust its reporting in the region?

The Israeli military ordered the 12-story al-Jalaa Tower, which hosts AP and Al Jazeera offices, evacuated an hour before the strike, saying it was being used by Hamas military intelligence. For a week, tensions between Israel and Hamas, the terrorist group that controls Gaza, have been at their highest since their 2014 conflict, with Hamas raining thousands of rockets into residential areas of the Jewish state.

Israel later shared some intelligence with the United States. “We showed them the smoking gun proving Hamas worked out of that building,” a source close to Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi told the Jerusalem Post. “I understand they found the explanation satisfactory.”

Of course, we’ve known for years that, as the Israel Defense Forces put it, Hamas “intentionally locates its military assets in the hearts of civil populations,” even “hiding behind” media outlets and “using them as human shields.”

And AP knew that well, according to one account. “When Hamas’ leaders surveyed their assets before this summer’s round of fighting, they knew that among those assets was the international press. The AP staff in Gaza City would witness a rocket launch right beside their office, endangering reporters and other civilians nearby — and the AP wouldn’t report it,” says a 2014 Atlantic piece by Matti Friedman. Hamas militants would regularly “burst into the AP’s Gaza bureau and threaten the staff — and the AP wouldn’t report it.”

It seems that what AP doesn’t know — and doesn’t report — always favors Hamas over those the group terrorizes.

Continue Reading

Opinion

NYC’s homeless problem fails the most vulnerable and endangers us all

Published

on

NYC's homeless problem fails the most vulnerable and endangers us all

Rarely a day goes by without some violent attack in Gotham. After a while, the headlines can easily blend into each other, lulling us into complacency. But it’s important to dig into the details to understand the government failures at work.

Consider the heinous assault against an elderly Asian-American woman in Times Square in March. The alleged perpetrator, Brandon Elliott, kicked the woman in the stomach and then stomped on her head repeatedly. The 38-year-old Elliott had been paroled after spending 19 years in prison for murdering his mother.

And where was Elliot released to after spending almost two decades behind bars? A mental-health institution? Into the care of family? No, he was released to a Four Points by Sheraton hotel, which serves as a homeless shelter, a few blocks from where Elliot would allegedly commit his hateful crime.

Mayor Bill de Blasio and Social Services Commissioner Steven Banks refuse to acknowledge it, but our city’s homeless policies aren’t working. The city fails both the homeless, who need our assistance, and taxpayers, who expect safe streets.

Yet Banks, especially, refuses to be held accountable. During a recent hearing, I asked him how many faith-based shelters had been opened in the Big Apple, since these settings can often be of tremendous value to taxpayers and homeless alike, fostering the kind of community support the homeless need to return to self-sufficiency. It was a straightforward question, not a “gotcha.” But even this mild query was too much for Banks.

When he refused to answer, I asked again and followed up with a question about the prior ZIP codes of residents who entered the homeless shelter in my district. Banks blew up at me and erupted into a bizarre tirade.

Homelessness is big business in New York, and under Banks and de Blasio, business has boomed. According to the Coalition for the Homeless, homelessness in the city has reached the highest levels since the Great Depression. The cost of the city’s shelter network has ballooned in tandem, to $2 billion.

Early in his administration, the mayor dismissed claims of a homelessness crisis.  Yet eventually, it couldn’t be denied. Even so, bureaucratic mismanagement plagued a Department of Homeless Services struggling to respond: Contracts to services providers couldn’t get approved by the city comptroller’s office, with some contracts never even being sent. Conditions in shelters were appalling for women and children.

Following the resignations of a deputy mayor and DHS commissioner in 2015, Banks became the chief of de Blasio’s doomed homelessness policy. Things didn’t improve.

Banks’ lack of interest in holding operating companies accountable for broken promises, like security and cleanliness, kept shelters dangerous. Many homeless New Yorkers would rather take their chances on the street.

The crisis snowballed, as Banks ignored mental-health issues and perpetuated the myth that every homeless individual is just “down on their luck.” But research shows that at least half of the homeless have some mental illness. New York City also has a prison-to-shelter pipeline that goes unaddressed.

Research from Stephen Eide at the Manhattan Institute reveals that 3,500 ex-offenders were released directly from prison into the shelter system in 2018. Other experts have testified that more than 40 percent of parolees are released into a shelter. As the recent attacks show, the pipeline too often leads, in the end, to more crime.

Acknowledging the mental-health crisis means using Kendra’s Law, which places the severely mentally ill in court-mandated treatment. Separating the mentally ill from the economically homeless would allow the city to provide better services in a safer environment. Services are needed to get these individuals on a path to self-sufficiency.

Banks made it hard to work with his agencies. For years, I tried to get data from him on the shelter in my district. Understanding which neighborhoods shelter residents were living in before moving into a shelter could help us allocate resources to prevent homelessness in the first place and then implement community-based solutions for those who become homeless.

Research has shown that community bonds are important in assisting individuals back to self-sufficiency. That is why I support faith-based shelters for community residents who find themselves homeless. New Yorkers experiencing homelessness should be sheltered with safety and dignity. But thanks to Banks’ embrace of the warehouse shelter model and the shelter-industrial complex, there’s no financial incentive to decrease homelessness or make shelters safer.

The next administration must do better.

Robert Holden represents the 30th District, covering parts of Queens, in the City Council.

Continue Reading

Trending