"advocates are predicting disaster when the subsidies run out"

And advocates are almost certainly going to be dead on in their prediction, too, since once those subsidies end, folks will no longer be able to pay those rents.  That will most likely cause prolonged evictions, with folks staying in those places and forcing landlords to take them to court to evict - I know I would - which will cost many property owners thousands of dollars and worse, harden their hearts towards folks living at the poverty line.

This penny-wise pound-foolish approach our city officials take has gone on for so long now that I don't think many people remember when we actually addressed problems with real solutions, regardless of the cost.  Of course, that was back some years ago when government at least provided the illusion that it was working for those who actually put them into office, rather than for those who filled their campaign chests with special interest dollars and qiud pro quo demands...

(NYT Editorial)
New York City and the Homeless

New Yorkers in and out of government should be concerned by new statistics showing that homelessness has reached an all-time high and that 120,000 men, women and children resorted to the shelter system during the fiscal year that ended this summer. The spike in homelessness is especially troubling because it has arrived before the onset of winter, which typically drives people in off the streets, filling the shelter system to bursting.

 

The Bloomberg administration says it is fully prepared for the winter rush and has been adjusting all along for a rise in demand for shelter that began two years ago. Even so, the administration should keep looking down the road to determine if new populations are becoming vulnerable and if new policies might be needed to keep endangered families in their homes.

The city attributes most of the rise in homelessness to the economy. It says the problem is not as bad here as in other cities and would be worse if not for refinements in the system, including programs that channel people into permanent homes and that prevent at-risk families from becoming homeless in the first place. The administration points with justifiable pride to the fact that the shelter system is more humane than it was a decade ago.

Advocates for the homeless and the hungry, however, continue to be suspicious of the city’s motives. They argue that the city has driven some vulnerable families to the brink with bureaucratic obstacles that make it difficult for qualified families to receive welfare and food-stamp benefits. A bone of contention between the advocates and the city dates to 2005 when Mayor Michael Bloomberg ended the practice of channeling shelter residents into apartments paid for by the federal Section 8 housing voucher program, which was then under attack by the Bush administration and in disfavor with Congress.

Under Section 8, people keep subsidies as long as they remain income eligible. In 2007, New York created a time-limited program under which working families get support services and rent subsidies that end after two years. The point was to get as many families as possible to stand on their own, but the advocates are predicting disaster when the subsidies run out and are calling for the city to return to the Section 8 strategy. The Bloomberg administration contends that this program has worked well and that only a tiny fraction of the families have reverted to homelessness. But the city should keep a close watch on these families as the subsidies phase out.