HIV/AIDS advocates in New York are hoping to prove to new Governor Cuomo that housing assistance is a necessity to HIV-positive individuals.

Back in September, we reported that then New York State Governor David A. Paterson vetoed a bill that would have provided additional rental assistance to residents who are living with HIV/AIDS. The legislation would have put a cap on the percentage of income that HIV+ individuals on public assistance pay for their rent. The bill passed in both the Senate and Assembly by wide margins, simply requiring the governors' signature as the final act of approval. He claims his reasoning for the veto was purely financial.

"This is my most difficult veto," Paterson said in a statement at the time. "I recognize, sadly, the history of the inadequacy of services government has brought to bear for those with HIV/AIDS." But he added, "I have pledged not to impose unfunded mandates on cash-strapped localities, and to prevent the state from taking on additional financial burdens outside the budget process without an identified funding source."

Gov. Paterson acted in response to the heavy pressure from the Bloomberg administration, which has historically been against this type of assistance. With a new Governor in office, advocates hope that a renewed push will get this important bill passed. Gov. Cuomo has shown more sympathy regarding the needs of HIV-positive individuals. He was Secretary for Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for most of the 1990's. Throughout his appointment, he had a record of increasing federal housing for people living with HIV/AIDS.

HIV management cannot exist without a person having their basic needs met, especially housing. Poverty and homelessness are deadly to an HIV+ individual. There continues to be more research conducted that is providing concrete data supporting this. HIV/AIDS is the number one cause of death in New York City homeless shelters, according to the most recent Department of Homeless Services study (pdf). HIV compromises a person's immune system. An HIV+ person is therefore more at risk of contracting illnesses than those without HIV. The illnesses they contract are then more likely to develop into more life threatening conditions more quickly. (Example: a common cold virus may spread more rapidly in the body of an HIV+ person and potentially develop into pneumonia, especially when cold temperatures are added into the mix). As homeless shelters tend to breed more illnesses than most other places, there is a greater risk of an HIV+ person becoming severely ill when staying at them. Not to mention the potential public health nightmare that would certainly follow. 

As for finances, providing housing and care for an HIV+ individual to maintain their health is much more cost effective than exposing them to an environment that will no doubt allow their HIV disease to progress. When HIV is not managed adequately, further medical issues develop and there is a need for more intensive treatment strategies. Treatments that are also much more costly.  Sure, in the short term officials may save a few bucks, but in the long term it will be disastrous for the financial stability of New York State. Plus the continuous spread of disease would lead to public health issues that would further strain the government's resources. Not to mention how inhumane this all is for the person living with HIV who is in need of stable housing.

New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, a Manhattan Democrat and a vocal advocate for people living with HIV, said at the time of the original veto: "We are talking about some of New York City's most vulnerable citizens who for many years now have been forced to live on practically nothing ... I understand not having enough resources. But at the end of the day, you get judged by how you take care of those in your city who are the most vulnerable."

These are powerful words. Now it is time for powerful action. Join us in this important fight!