Why housing advocates oppose a new California law designed to help the homeless

Discussion in 'Civil Liberties' started by kazenatsu, Sep 18, 2022.

  1. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    <THREAD TITLE EDITED TO MATCH LINKED ARTICLE>

    California is supposedly the most progressive and "compassionate" state in the nation. But the homeless problems have been so bad there that now the state has just passed a new law. The governor, Newsom, has felt pressure to show the voters he is "doing something", in preparation for his expected Presidential bid.

    The law will allow homeless persons with mental health or drug issues to be subject to probation-like restrictions and requirements, with the threat of imprisonment into prison-like treatment centers. For example, they could be forced to go to appointments or be required to take medications.

    For many of these homeless people, it may be difficult to go to these appointments without a car or money. For others, they might be told they have to take medications which are not actually very helpful for their condition or which have severe negative side effects. This is not uncommon.

    Many supporters of civil liberties are seeing this as a potential violation of rights.

    I think it could be very understandable to require drug users to be put into treatment, but those with mental health issues usually have that condition through no fault of their own, and the reality that much of the public doesn't want to believe is that medications and treatment are usually not very effective at treating mental health conditions.

    There is however a large segment of the homeless population with both borderline mental health conditions and drug issues, so this could further confuse matters.

    Another likely problem with this policy is there simply do not exist enough facilities in the state to put all these people. Does it really make sense to be forcing homeless people into facilities when there does not exist enough treatment capacity for all those homeless persons who would voluntarily want treatment?

    Lots of progressive organizations are speaking out and raising alarms over this new law, and normally the state of California, with its progressive politics, listens to these voices, but this time it may be that most of the voters are simply fed up with the out of control homeless situation and want something to be done, and have run out of sympathy.

    Keep in mind that in many parts of the state even many middle class people struggle to be able to afford to live there, due to the high housing prices.

    Why housing advocates oppose a new California law designed to help the homeless, Salon, Troy Farah, September 18, 2022
    Why housing advocates oppose a new California law designed to help the homeless | Salon.com

    A new California law ostensibly aimed at helping unhoused people shreds their autonomy, advocates say.
    On Wednesday, Sept 14, Newsom signed SB 1338, the Community Assistance, Recovery and Empowerment Act (CARE) into law.​
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 3, 2022
    Melb_muser likes this.
  2. Melb_muser

    Melb_muser Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2020
    Messages:
    10,332
    Likes Received:
    10,696
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Could be scary for them. A better option might be to provide amenities and services.

    A pertinent question is why are there so many homeless and mentally ill in California?
     
  3. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Most likely this will end up being used as a tool by police, who will tell homeless to move out of the area, with the threat of having them arrested and put into "treatment" if they don't. Great way to clear out areas where they don't want the homeless. And I suspect "mental health" may just be used as a convenient excuse to haul away homeless people who didn't actually have any real signs of mental illness. With a homeless person continually being arrested, held for a few days, and then released far away, separated from all their belongings, it will subject them to harassment and send the message that they are not welcome in that area.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2022
  4. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Yea that’s just terrible for mentally I’ll people to get treatment, it’s much better for those people to live on the street where they can feed their substance abuse addictions and commit crimes.
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  5. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,695
    Likes Received:
    21,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Partially due to the weather. Its warm with relatively little rain year around. I lived in my car in Venice Beach for a while after college, til the money I saved up ran out. You cant beat the weather there. But the people...
     
  6. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It will be interesting to see what happens in this experiment, as it covers only a few urban areas, possibly making comparisons possible.

    Every significant city has this problem. We've backed away from being active about helping those with disabilities, even when it's clear they can't make the decisions necessary in order to hold a job, maintain apartment living, etc.

    Our system IS founded on the idea that anyone not in the military or in a compulsory mental institution should have autonomy. But, that clearly is not a complete answer.
     
  7. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Amid homeless crisis, New York to step up forced hospitalization of mentally ill

    New York City Mayor Eric Adams rolled out a plan on Tuesday to allow more homeless and mentally ill people to be hospitalized against their will in order to tackle "a crisis we see all around us."
    Speaking from City Hall, Adams said the city had a "moral obligation" to help New Yorkers struggling to meet their own basic needs because of mental illness, even if those people resisted intervention.
    The Democratic mayor has made addressing the city's homelessness crisis a priority for his administration since taking office earlier this year.
    "We can no longer deny the reality that untreated psychosis can be a cruel and all-consuming condition that often requires involuntary intervention, supervised medical treatment and long-term care," Adams said.
    New York law allows for involuntary hospitalization when a person's mental illness prevents them from providing for their own basic needs, as well as when they present a danger to themselves or others. But law enforcement has not commonly used the practice.

    Amid homeless crisis, New York to step up forced hospitalization of mentally ill, Reuters, November 29, 2022
     
  8. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
  9. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am also unhappy. It looks like a moderator changed the title of this thread. The original title of this thread was "California passes law allowing homeless with mental illness to be harassed and imprisoned".

    I do not like it when moderators do that. It obscures what the problem is about.
     
  10. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your title made no sense.

    The real problem is one of leaving psychotics to live on our streets untreated.

    The idea of previous law that psychosis can be treated in 3 days of compulsory confinement is simply ludicrous. No doctor can do that. Plus, a significant factor is that people in this kind of state are well known to find it difficult to impossible to follow a prescription drugs regimen. That is not solved by writing a prescription.

    Previous law was made to keep the budget low, NOT to help people who have serious health needs.
     
  11. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes it did. What part were you not able to understand?
    You don't understand how this law will allow (and almost certainly inevitably lead to) homeless people being harassed and detained against their will?

    And you are completely welcome to your opinion. That is an opinion many people in the public hold. But it does not mean my opinion or perspective on this story is wrong or invalid.

    I do not believe this law was passed with the primary intention of helping these people.
     
  12. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There have been many years of this practice of letting psychotics live on the street with no help other than 3 days of detention.

    That is a PROVEN failure. AND, it also included forced detention.

    The bottom line is that leaving these people to live on our streets without any reasonable help is just not acceptable.

    And, YOU have proposed no better alternative, but instead push to leave them on the streets.

    WHY?
     
  13. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My point was it's unlikely they can actually really be "helped" with 10 days, or even 6 months.
    In most of these cases, the problem is never going to go away.

    It's only in a handful of certain type of cases that there is a possibility they could be helped.

    If you disagree with that, perhaps we should talk about the details of exactly what mental issues you are talking about, and how you think "treatment" is going to solve the problem or really do something significant to help.
     
    Jarlaxle likes this.
  14. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    41,184
    Likes Received:
    16,180
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So what do you suggest we do?
     
    Melb_muser and WillReadmore like this.
  15. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They are not pushing for 10 days or 6 months.

    They are pushing for a year of inpatient treatment with an option for a second year.

    You need a new point - or an alternate proposal.
     
  16. Melb_muser

    Melb_muser Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2020
    Messages:
    10,332
    Likes Received:
    10,696
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What a horrible situation for these people. Living with mental illness is bad enough, let alone being homeless as well.
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  17. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I guess we, as a society, don't care about incarcerating people against their will, for 1 or 2 years, when they have done nothing wrong, when those people are homeless and have mental health issues.

    So much for respecting the individual rights of everyone...
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2022
    Jarlaxle likes this.
  18. Jarlaxle

    Jarlaxle Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    8,939
    Likes Received:
    461
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    This is a return to the era of having an inconvenient relative declared "crazy" and locking him or her up in a nut house. How long before the forced lobotomies?
     
  19. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We already have 1 or 2 year inpatient treatment plans for certain kinds of problems - like substance abuse.

    As I understand it, this is an extension of another year or two, as success has been shown to be more successful if not limited to 1 or 2 years.

    Plus, treating these people on an outpatient basis has not been successful. So, they just continue their horrible existences even though there are known treatments.

    A prospective patient would still have to qualify for a treatment plan, and there would still be a time limit.

    In other words, this isn't a new way to dump an "inconvenient relative". And, success would be measured by the success of patients as they live their lives after treatment.
     
  20. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As I understand it, 1 or 2 years is the current standard for the treatments specified.

    The problem is that there are people on our streets and in other living facilities that COULD live productive, happy lives with treatment. Consider those with serious substance abuse issues.

    There absolute are rights issues. But, I find it hard to accept that as an excuse for refusing to treat people whose lives could monumentally benefit from treatment.
     
  21. Jarlaxle

    Jarlaxle Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    8,939
    Likes Received:
    461
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Yet.
     
  22. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    More Californians with untreated mental illness and addiction issues could be detained against their will and forced into treatment under legislation signed Tuesday by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The new law, which reforms the state’s conservatorship system, expands the definition of "gravely disabled" to include people who are unable to provide themselves basic needs such as food and shelter due to an untreated mental illness or unhealthy drugs and alcohol use. Local governments say current state laws leave their hands tied if a person refuses to receive help.

    The legislation, authored by Democratic Sen. Susan Eggman, is the latest attempt to update California's 56-year-old law governing mental health conservatorships -- an arrangement where the court appoints someone to make legal decisions for another person, including whether to accept medical treatment and take medications.

    Opponents of the bill, including disability rights advocates, are worried the new law will result in more people being locked up and deprived them of their fundamental rights, since it will likely involve coercing a person into treatment.​

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom signs bill expanding conservatorship law, Associated Press, 10/10/23
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2023

Share This Page