The Q OWNS the Times

Reader Rina pointed out that the Times ran a piece two days after the Q's post on the overwhelming advantage to going contract-less and prepaid with your cell phone. To those whose link-clicker is broken, here's the meat of the deal:

A Consumer Reports article in January on cellphones compared the two-year cost under various plans of an iPhone 5 with 16 gigabytes. Straight Talk came out the cheapest, even though the upfront cost for the phone, $650, was the highest. With a monthly cost of $45 for unlimited data), the total came to $1,730 after two years.At Verizon, the cost of the same iPhone was $200, but a similar monthly plan — with a data allowance of two gigabytes — was $100 a month, bringing the cost up to $2,600 for two years. AT&T was even more expensive — although it offered a data plan of four gigabytes — at $2,840.And, of course, if you don’t need the newest, hottest phone, cheaper ones are available. Cricket offers a Samsung Android smartphone for $159, with plans that cost $25 to $60 a month.

The Q adds: I've got the android Samsung Reverb, and at $199 upfront has proven to have all the nifty iPhone apps w/out the break-bank price. Actually, it resembles the iPhone to such a degree that I'm surprised Apple hasn't sued Samsung for patent infringement! What, you say? They did? Good for them! I sure as heck like my phone though...

But more crucially, the Times finally ran a piece on something I've been actually begging them to cover (by email, I didn't actually go there in knee pads), an issue I would have titled Scummy Slumlords Running Homeless Shelters. If you didn't catch my bit about the awful situation at the homeless shelter at 60 Clarkson, the Scandal Down the Block, and you have more than a minute to kill, I'd be grateful for as many eyes and thoughts on this issue as possible. The disgraceful policy that enriches slumlords at taxpayer expense while at the same time providing nothing in the way of meaningful, long-term rental assistance, while at the even samer time converting rent-stabilized buildings into homeless shelters overnight without community review or even notification, and at the samest time ostensibly forces out rent-paying tenants who may themselves become homeless as a result and could conceivably end up in the same apartment they were kicked out of but without rights or a lease...wow. It's really mind-blowing. Meanwhile, the dealers on my block have a nearly endless steady stream of vulnerable clients with whom to hawk their wares.

Now THAT'S policy.