Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

k1lk1 t1_ir066wx wrote

Public transit on Randall's Island sucks, but it might actually be better than near Orchard Beach...

63

BxGyrl416 t1_ir0pygz wrote

You can walk to 125 St. or to Astoria from Randall’s Island.

25

TonyzTone t1_ir0sap5 wrote

Well, you can walk to Connecticut from Orchard Beach. Not sure that makes it a good place.

25

Tobar_the_Gypsy t1_ir1lypj wrote

It’s a half hour walk to Astoria. But there is a free bus to Manhattan at least.

3

Tough_Wear_5839 t1_ir10opx wrote

Panhandling is more lucrative in Astoria, plenty of young professionals with disposable income .

−1

Dutch1206 t1_ir15pa6 wrote

It's not the young professionals carrying cash or coin. I haven't needed to carry cash in years.

16

richb83 t1_ir1pkpp wrote

I lived in that area for most of my life. There are buses that go to the beach but it's only during the summer. You'll need to walk for miles or depend on Uber for anything else.

5

jonishay8 t1_ir05zpn wrote

Probably makes the most sense of you’re not trying to piss off any locals.

38

HypeDiego t1_ir1kfwn wrote

Has anyone one who is making these decisions ever been to Randall's Island? A few inches of rain and half the island goes under lol

15

Grass8989 t1_ir1nt8s wrote

The same thing happens on Orchard Beach which Was the original location.

15

HypeDiego t1_ir1sgcv wrote

smh. If it wasn't for work I would like leave NYC

2

oreosfly t1_ir1xwsw wrote

Ironically, the original Orchard Beach location was scrapped due to flood mitigation issues

6

HypeDiego t1_ir1xzna wrote

Who are these people calling the shots

1

Grass8989 t1_ir2cywv wrote

The same people who think it’s manageable to accept an unlimited number of migrants to a city that already has a housing crisis.

3

HypeDiego t1_ir2hx59 wrote

sad. The mayor will have to cut a deal with the developers who have those new buildings half empty because the rent is sky high.

1

Gb_packers973 t1_ir3ahqb wrote

Maybe if there was flooding, its better for them to deal with the floods on Randall’s island?

Or there were more influential people in the Bronx to step in.

1

RayCiaf t1_ir2gdiw wrote

they can't find a spot to put 500 people indoors?

10

the_bronx t1_ir4xcq2 wrote

We have armorys all over new york with bathrooms showers and heat! Yet the best we can do is a tent. Guess comic con takes precedence for convention centers too.

7

whateverisok t1_ir2iufu wrote

Well, a bit more than just put "people indoors":

"The centers will provide a connection to a full list of services and support asylum seekers' needs by immediately offering shelter, food, medical care, casework services, among other options at an expertly designed and climate-controlled, safe space."

So there's also the infrastructure and worker transportation to be considered

5

sysyphusishappy t1_ir3amlb wrote

>"The centers will provide a connection to a full list of services and support asylum seekers' needs by immediately offering shelter, food, medical care, casework services,

Weird how there are literally no other places on the Upper West Side, Park Slope, Brooklyn Heights, Williamsburg, or Battery Park city that can possibly provide food an shelter for a few hundred people. They just don't have "infrastructure" like a tent on Randall's Island does.

As with all their luxury beliefs, the virtue signaling millionaires prefer to dump the results of their voting onto poor people. This way they can still pretend to care on Instagram and awards shows but don't have to actually deal with the consequences of their votes.

Luxury. Beliefs.

13

HEIMDVLLR t1_ir5zcj4 wrote

That’s exactly my point and I got downvoted. This shit smells like NIMBY pushed another demographic onto an island.

5

HayPlaceAPlaceforHay t1_is047xf wrote

Yeah most people don’t want to live on a neighborhood overrun by homeless shelters

2

RayCiaf t1_ir3f9t0 wrote

wtf does that have to do with putting people outside in tents instead of indoors in an already 'expertly designed' building.

3

barzbub t1_ir53p4e wrote

Illegal became Undocumented Worker is now Asylum Seeker! What’s next, VOTER

9

CheckPlease54 t1_ir9ns0c wrote

See, hate

2

barzbub t1_ir9oc1b wrote

Look in the mirror

1

CheckPlease54 t1_ir9odtv wrote

Because you posted typical hate? My mirror is clear

2

barzbub t1_ir9ory7 wrote

I made a statement about criminals, not hate. You attack me with your hate, where’s your so called compassion.

1

CheckPlease54 t1_ir9oumr wrote

Asylum is legal, calling them criminals is pure hate

Keep going

Or keep trying to make yourself the victim lol

2

barzbub t1_ir9p9c4 wrote

Once again, not going through US Customs is ILLEGAL!! Breaking the law is a CRIME! Undocumented is Illegal!

0

CheckPlease54 t1_ir9pbyn wrote

They are legal, all you have is hate. You keep proving it

1

barzbub t1_ir9phhz wrote

You walk into Mexico without going through Customs seeking asylum and see how LEGAL you are 🤪

1

CheckPlease54 t1_ir9pmlm wrote

You can go to any port of entry.

All you have is hate, and it’s easy to show.

1

barzbub t1_ir9q6gp wrote

They’re not going through a PORT OF ENTRY

0

Cute-Locksmith8737 t1_it4txx2 wrote

Most illegals are not genuine asylum seekers, they are economic opportunists.

0

CheckPlease54 t1_it4vier wrote

That’s just another excuse to hate legal immigrants

1

Cute-Locksmith8737 t1_it58wur wrote

Legal immigrants are acceptable. The country knows who they are, where they are from, why they are coming, how long they intend to stay, and other vital information. Illegal aliens are like burglars who sneak orbreak into a home. The country has no idea who illegal aliens are, where they are from, why they are coming, how long they plan to stay, and other necessary information. Illegals are more likely to be uneducated, filthy disease bearers that can pose a grave threat to a country's health and security.

1

CheckPlease54 t1_it596y0 wrote

Asylum is legal.

1

Cute-Locksmith8737 t1_it5a23r wrote

Genuine asylum seekers are legal. Illegal aliens are not. Poverty is not a justification for asylum. Neither is gang warfare. Most illegals are not genuine asylum seekers. They are economic opportunists. They are some of the nastiest folks I have ever encountered.

1

CheckPlease54 t1_it5bb0e wrote

So you hate legal immigrants, and show all you have is hate.

1

tacitauthor t1_ir3p5x5 wrote

Orchard beach does not flood. It's on my daily bike ride.

0

the_bronx t1_ir4x42h wrote

Lol. No you don't unless you're retired there is no reason to commute past that beach it's in the middle of nowhere.

Also it absolutely floods specifically the parking lot. In fact go there right now dumbass.🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

4

tacitauthor t1_ir78cie wrote

I'm retired and have lived in the area for 28 years. I ride about 20 miles a day on the bike paths and roads. I sometimes ride up to New Rochelle or a short ride to the end of City Island. The photo you are showing is just water pooling in the parking lot. The parking lot holds 12,000 cars and is blacktop. It's old and not perfectly level. The pooling water is just a few small sections. It's a bird bath for the sea gulls for a bit of time.

1

crmd t1_ir2jz3a wrote

I hope they put big state flags in each area to show who was sent from Texas, from Florida, etc. New York City stepping up to shelter people discarded by other states is a powerful image I would like Americans to see.

−3

sysyphusishappy t1_ir3a8p7 wrote

>New York City stepping up to shelter people

LOL. There were 15,000 migrants from Haiti in Del Rio Texas, a town with 35,000 people, in ONE DAY year. More than 2 million have been caught or encountered so far this year. There are tens of thousands being housed in Texas as we speak.

But yeah, very charitable for us to dump them on Randall's island after declaring a few hundred people in a city of 8 million "a crisis". Wait, let me guess, all the smug virtue signaling millionaires in Park Slope "didn't have the resources" to house a few hundred people just like the smug virtue signalling millionaires on martha's vineyard "didn't have the resources" for 50 people.

Luxury. Beliefs.

11

OneRighteousDuder t1_ir159b2 wrote

You’re gonna put asylum seekers on sex offender island? Jeez…that’s the last thing these people need

−10

throwaway_samaritan t1_ir66wsb wrote

That place is nice and quiet with great views. Nothing wrong with building tents there - tons of music festivals have been there. Go visit, and much safer than the Bronx and a quick walk to Manhattan. It is probably a big improvement. The asylum is in a big ass building with gated security - separated - nobody is getting in or out.

3

HEIMDVLLR t1_ir064jx wrote

They might as well placed them on Riker’s Island.

Edit: Randall’s island has a psych ward, homeless shelters and where a lot of sex offenders are allowed to live.

−21

PorchHonky t1_ir06uke wrote

It’s also my favorite bike ride!

29

readyforthehausu t1_ir09oev wrote

I used to make the commute to run out there. Some lovely sections with dystopian tics.

16

aabbboooo t1_ir1r39e wrote

It really is a nice place to run, bike, play baseball.

4

drpvn t1_ir08f71 wrote

The bus to Randall’s Island can get pretty wild.

13

laughing_behemoth t1_ir0iutr wrote

Why?

0

aabbboooo t1_ir1qnf3 wrote

Many of the people who are assigned to shelters on Wards Island rely on the bus. In addition, the Wards Island shelter is one of the few in the city that can accommodate people with disabilities, so using pedestrian paths isn’t an option.

5

ThreeLittlePuigs t1_ir0e6zo wrote

So does my neighborhood and likely the one in the Bronx where they were building the encampment in the first place. There’s plenty of reasons to criticize the move without throwing the homeless under the bus as some awful population to be nearby

12

HEIMDVLLR t1_ir0gapq wrote

Trust me that wasn’t my intentions.

The point I was trying to make is, they’re pushing these asylum seekers further away, out of sight and out of mind.

The city uses Randall’s island as a means to satisfy the NIMBY’s. “Place them over there on that island, where we send everyone we don’t want in our neighborhood”

3

app4that t1_ir0nb12 wrote

Funny part of poking fun of NIMBY is that once violent crime and/or property crime spikes no one wants derelicts, homeless, offenders or addicts in their neighborhood, I don’t care who they are.

And to be honest, if these places are not being actively monitored for criminal activity (and I don’t believe they ever are) then don’t put these places filled with people prone to crime in neighborhoods where families or seniors live.

12

jonishay8 t1_ir0itgy wrote

I wonder what a rikers Island inmate would choose if you offered them the option to live on Randall’s island vs rikers

4

Grass8989 t1_ir1o7p7 wrote

Since this is just a processing center, and they will be released into homeless shelters, it would probably make sense for them to be close to shelters. This was never intended on being a long term living arrangement.

0