The Dunkin is open past 11pm now? Thats a good improvement.

I think you're only focused on one side of the equation. There's a balance between liberty and order. If there were no rules about where to sit or how long you could stay, and there was never any removal by police, Penn Station's function as a train station would be in jeopardy.

You can enforce a rule against remaining in the station / loitering past a certain period of time.

My sense is that there is room at the shelters, but that shelters have strict rules that many people would have difficulty following. Shelters of course impose structure that many would resist. I can understand the mentality of a person who is dealing with severe mental health and drug issues gravitating toward living at a place like Penn Station to the extent that it is made available to him. Then if there is a contingent of people essentially living in the station without realistic alternatives, how should the police handle that? Very difficult question, but I wouldn't fault someone for arguing that there should be rules against squatting / domiciling in the station, and that the police should enforce those rules. That is a legitimate argument, though not the only one.

The police are already clearing the station to some extent. If they weren't, one would see more homeless people at Penn Station, eventually to the point that the core function of the station would be in jeopardy. I think what we're seeing right now is some unhappy equilibrium / compromise between the interests of train passengers and station residents, as it were.

[deleted]

Being homeless in a public place is not a crime. Rounding up the homeless in Penn Station would be a severe violation of their civil rights. Just because you feel uncomfortable when you see homeless people, it doesn't give the police the right to forcibly remove them.

"An indoor space with police supervision". The transit police in Newark are not there to supervise the homeless. Rather it is because of the homeless that we have increased transit police. It's for the safety of the genuine passengers. Technically, if you have a valid ticket or you intend to get one they cant get rid of you unless you commit a crime.

The way I see it there is no solution unless you discriminate against people based on looks. Either that or blocking access only to people with a valid ticket for that day but that also means changing the PATH ticketing system.

Seton Hall law school is near penn station, so any city near a path station is doable for you.

Jersey city, hoboken, all have path stations which would make your commute to school accessible

Newark should build a homeless shelter if it doesn’t have one already. I’m not sure why my post necessarily precluded that option. But if that can’t be done, they still can’t stay in the train station. You have to push past them to get up the stairs and they’re screaming at each other downstairs.

Edit: they also have access to NYC homeless shelters

Stop using Reddit like a personal concierge because you don't know how to use search

What would be detention without a crime? I’m saying the current situation is one in which homeless people are allowed to stay indoors with police supervision, if they choose

How are the homeless dangerous especially with police patrolling? Do you mean as a white person traveling to Newark NNY? It just gives you and icky feeling

The liberal & media narrative goes like this:

"These are people down on their luck"

This isn't the great depression . Over 90% of these individuals are mental ill cases incapable of following rules. They overwhelmingly refuse to stay in shelters bc they can't shoot drugs or drink there. Neither can they bring their shopping carts & other stuff they hoarde. Nothing is more upsetting than returning to "your spot" to find everything has been cleared of another homeless person went thru "your stuff" while you were in shelter.

Insane asylums were closed based on the theory we could trust the mentally I'll to stick to the medicine regimen. Most don't.

I really would love for an investigation into all these so called non-profits that are earning millions in contracts from both cities and states to deal with the homeless.

Lmao Democrats politics is shady af. Knowing the NYC mayor position on homelessness from his recent actions, I doubt it will be easy to reach an agreement on the fate of these people. One can argue that homeless are running away from nyc to newark.

Both States work together on a variety of issues just throw this on the pile. Plus whatever happened to that lawsuit Newark had with New York City about it that disappeared real quick

Its a money/politics problem. They cant control movement between nyc/newark.

Which local authority you reckon should foot the bill?

That would be detention without a crime.

Maybe OP is suggesting they do with them what NYC mayor is doing with thirs...oh wait...it is the same homeless people.

Its NYC export to NJ

Idk about dangerous it’s like one flew over the cuckoos nest at best

That’s another issue to tackle as a city then. But language contains intention, so people will critique inappropriate uses of it in order to curtail the potential for bad intentions seeping into one’s actions. For example, I have less trust in someone’s intentions who refers to queer people as “f*gs” when discussing how to help the queer community, than someone who speaks of them respectfully. It’s not a perfect science of course, but a safe general rule of thumb to keep people on a positive agenda when it comes to fixing societal problems.

Just out of curiosity, by your proposal, where do the homeless go once you “clear them out”, and why is that outcome less dangerous than the one where they’re in an indoor space under police supervision?

But what happens if there are services and help available and every time they come around all these homeless people keep telling them no but because we can't force somebody to seek help. Some of these homeless people will tell you they want help yet they turn down help for years . What do you become that if what you're asking for your offered and you keep saying no and I'm not talking about just shelter I'm talking about their offered medical help counseling and shelter and I've seen them turn it down over and over in my 20 years of working in and around Newark Penn. I don't know what else to consider an individual at that point a squatter we can use squatter it's not the proper word but if it makes you feel better then we'll call them squatters

It’s the language of referring to humans as though they were rats that people take an issue with, not the notion of maintaining a train station. Ideally Newark would provide some form of shelter or housing for them. But if that’s not the case, it seems a bit cold to just wish they’d be “cleared out” with no follow-up plan.

The people attacking the OP and calling you a monster for asking whether a train station can be maintained as a train station are indirectly answering the question.