New York City to Remove Mentally Ill People From Streets Against Their Will

[EMNofSeattle]

That's not a bad thing. The concern should be "where will they house and treat these people"? Maybe because of the humane respect for Mentally Ill People, that it will lead to New Methodology in how we as a society restructure to be of assistance and service to Mentally Ill People.

• Hopefully, it will lead to HUD developing Programming that helps fund new methods and means of dealing with Mental Illness Across The Nation.
• Additionally, hopefully Dept of Education will create grant programs for people who are studying to be Mental Health Professionals and increase the number of people in society who are trained to work with the mentally ill.

Ronald Reagan, kicked them to the street when he was Governor of California and we see how that spread across the nation when Ronald Reagan became President.

It's likely this is what we need, A Governor to Reverse the Ideology that Ronald Reagan created of dumping the people in the street and cutting funds for facilities to assist them.

• Maybe now we can get programming that help families identify Mental Illness Early, and Community Centers can get grant funds to create programs to establish Mental Health assistane at the many "church based community centers" that this nations has 100's of thousands of functioning centers at many of the churches around the nations.

It makes no sense that we have so many Large Church centers, that remain closed most of the week, when these centers can be activated and utilized to be places that have open access to help people, in the communities across this nation.

We already have enough homelessness acvtistists working at local governments and non profits, we don’t need another full employment patronage program for indebted university grads.

We need to view this as a public order issue and just start arresting people, identifying where they’re from, and sending them back. Cities need to be able to exile those who don’t belong there. And they need to be severely punished to coerce them into seeking help. We already have many services to help the homeless, but the stick isn’t used to beat them hard enough to take the carrot

 

[Dans La Lune]

We should just give them all free beach front mansions in Malibu, maybe Pacific Palisades?

The bare minimum would be nice, especially since ultra-billionaire have so much money to waste on stupid shit.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The bare minimum would be nice,

What does that even mean?

especially since ultra-billionaire have so much money to waste on stupid shit.

You mean like giving drug users housing in cities that people that work cannot afford? No. Free housing for the homeless needs to be in jail or involuntary institutional care

Giving “homeless people” free housing doesn’t work because the problem isn’t housing. It’s mental illness or substance use, they’ll just ruin any housing you give them unless it’s strictly regulated.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Is this better? I clicked gift

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/29/...ytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

This “plan” seems to be mostly wishful thinking with scant (to be nice) implementation ‘details’ - note the use of “would” and “going to” (future tense) rather than “has” (present tense) or ”had” (past tense) is used to describe what the NYC Mayor will “make sure” (eventually and hopefully?) would be done.

How this NYC (coming soon?) “hospital directive” is going to be enforced is never addressed. It seems like adding 50 more “psychiatric beds” (very soon?) to serve a city of over 8M people is purely symbolic.

Mr. Adams said the city would direct hospitals to keep those patients until they are stable and discharge them only when there is a workable plan in place to connect them to ongoing care.

Hospitals often cite a shortage of psychiatric beds as the reason for discharging patients, but the mayor said that the city would make sure there were enough beds for people who were removed from the street. He noted that Gov. Kathy Hochul had agreed to add 50 new psychiatric beds. “We are going to find a bed for everyone,” Mr. Adams said.

 

[RealityNow]

We already have enough homelessness acvtistists working at local governments and non profits, we don’t need another full employment patronage program for indebted university grads.

We need to view this as a public order issue and just start arresting people, identifying where they’re from, and sending them back. Cities need to be able to exile those who don’t belong there. And they need to be severely punished to coerce them into seeking help. We already have many services to help the homeless, but the stick isn’t used to beat them hard enough to take the carrot

You can think anything you choose... it does not change my mind about what I wrote.
You've never ever said anything that supports helping anyone, so you can add your comment to those who think like you, because to me ... its inhumane and leans to the barbarian ideology... which is common in your posting.

• If you had a son or daugher with mental illness, tell us how eager you would be to want them arrested and exiled and sent back to your home. maybe then you act on your delight to beat them with a stick and try to force feed them a carrot.

 

[Dans La Lune]

What does that even mean?

It's the topic of this discussion.

You mean like giving drug users housing in cities that people that work cannot afford? No. Free housing for the homeless needs to be in jail or involuntary institutional care

Sure, and jailing them costs more money than housing them.

Giving “homeless people” free housing doesn’t work because the problem isn’t housing. It’s mental illness or substance use, they’ll just ruin any housing you give them unless it’s strictly regulated.

I support regulations.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

you can think anything you choose... it does not change my mind about what I wrote.
You've never ever said anything that supports helping anyone,

To the contrary, being puntitive does help people, you only suggested hiring thousands of new government officers. Nothing you suggested involves helping people

so you can add your comment to those who think like you, because to me ... its inhumane and leans to the barbarian ideology... which is common in your posting.

It’s not barbarism to enforce vagrancy laws

 

[EMNofSeattle]

It's the topic of this discussion.



Sure, and jailing them costs more money than housing them.

No it doesn’t. There is no way that can be true unless you’re engaging in Enron style accounting.

I support regulations.

No, you don’t. Regulated housing has a name, it’s called jail.

 

[RealityNow]

To the contrary, being puntitive does help people, you only suggested hiring thousands of new government officers. Nothing you suggested involves helping people

Thanks for your "anti jobs" and "anti helping people" comment... You've never said anything positive since you've been on this site...

It’s not barbarism to enforce vagrancy laws

Shallow thinking, as usual. do, you have any idea that we already have overcrowded prisons... and even then, there still has to be services provided. It might be interesting if you were among those taken off the streets and analyzed...

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Thanks for your "anti jobs" and "anti helping people" comment... You've never said anything positive since you've been on this site...

personal attacks because you can’t construct an argument!

Shallow thinking, as usual. do, you have any idea that we already have overcrowded prisons... and even then, there still has to be services provided. It might be interesting if you were among those taken off the streets and analyzed...

What does an “overcrowded prison” even mean? I doubt prisons are more populated then POW camps were in World War Two. We can make more room

 

[Dans La Lune]

No it doesn’t. There is no way that can be true unless you’re engaging in Enron style accounting.

A Florida County Spent Over $5 Million Jailing Homeless People Instead Of Housing Them

A Florida County Spent Over $5 Million Jailing Homeless People Instead Of Housing Them

www.huffpost.com

The "frequent flyers" cost the county a total of $5,081,680, according to the report. That’s about $15,000 per person, per year.

"These are people who are disabled and mentally ill. They need their country and their community to help them," Andrae Bailey, CEO of Central Florida Commission on Homelessness, told The Huffington Post. "It makes no financial sense not to help them."

Part of what makes "no sense" is the fact that the county could spend considerably less money on finding housing for the homeless instead of temporarily sending them to jail.
Providing permanent supportive housing and ongoing case management for one person would come to $9,602 annually, according to the report. That's 35 percent less than what it costs to put homeless people in jail.

...

"It costs roughly $50 a day to incarcerate one homeless person," Amanda Mole, editor of the Tampa Epoch, told HuffPost Live. "[During] the last homeless count that took place, we had 356 homeless people in jail."
That would cost Tampa more than $6 million a year.
"It always cost more [to keep someone in jail]. Sometimes it’s just astronomically more," Bailey said.

Study Reveals It Costs Less to Give the Homeless Housing Than to Leave Them on the Street

The news: A new study has found that it's significantly cheaper to house the homeless than leave them on the streets. University of North Carolina Charlotte researchers released a study on Monday that tracked chronically homeless adults housed in…

www.mic.com

University of North Carolina Charlotte researchers released a study on Monday that tracked chronically homeless adults housed in the Moore Place facility run by Charlotte's Urban Ministry Center (UMC) in partnership with local government. Housing these people led to dramatic cost savings that more than paid for the cost of putting them in decent housing, including $1.8 million in health care savings from 447 fewer ER visits (78% reduction) and 372 fewer hospital days (79% reduction). Tenants also spent 84 fewer days in jail, with a 72% drop in arrests.

Moore Place cost $6 million in land and construction costs, and tenants are required to contribute 30% of their income (mainly benefits) towards rent. The remainder of the $14,000 per tenant annually is covered by donations and local and federal funding. According to the UNCC study, that $14,000 pales in comparison to the costs a chronically homeless person racks up every year to society — a stunning $39,458 in combined medical, judicial and other costs.

New opportunities: What's more, Moore Place is enabling the formerly homeless to find their own sources of income. Without housing, just 50% were able to generate any income. One year after move-in, they're up to 82%. And after an average length of 7 years of homelessness, 94% of the original tenants retained their housing after 18 months, with a 99% rent collection rate.

 

[Torus34]

Perhaps this 'either/or' might help to clarify the discussion.

What the homeless lack are homes. That's self-evident. So-called 'tiny homes' can be built for, say, $40K each. This compares favorably with maintaining someone in jail.

Those who can take care of themselves in tiny homes? Problem solved. A program to assist them in becoming employed can possibly cut the eventual cost.

Those who cannot? Humane institutionalization with a strong program to enable them to take care of themselves is a solution. From there? Tiny homes.

Regards, stay safe 'n well . . . 'n warm.

 

[MTAtech]

Given you are a leftist, and all leftist political philosophy is inherently totalitarian and based on arresting political dissidents, I have no delusions that you wouldn’t have me put in prison if you could.

If the regime wants me in prison they’re not going to claim I am mentally ill, they’re going to try to entrap me like the fake Michigan plot. I have never seen you condemn in writing the fake FBI entrapment in the Michigan case.

Thanks for the strawman. If we look at totalitarian regimes around the world, they are overwhelmingly right-wing — Hungary, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Saying that, communist countries are typically totalitarian. The problem is, you are conflating economic philosophy with political philosophy.

 

[Anthony60]

They are going to suspend this anytime Joe Biden visits NYC.

 

[Loulit01]

They are going to suspend this anytime Joe Biden visits NYC.

Trump won't risk coming to the city at all.

 

[Torus34]

Trump won't risk coming to the city at all.

Mr. Donald Trump has no need to come to New York City. His poodles in the Congress of the United States of America, void of feck, come to him at Mar-A-Largo. As, apparently, do others -- sometimes to dine at his table.

Speaking of poodles: https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/29/politics/fact-check-mccarthy-trump-fuentes/index.html

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Thanks for the strawman. If we look at totalitarian regimes around the world, they are overwhelmingly right-wing — Hungary, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.

In no way can Hungary be described as a totalitarian state. I really don’t think Turkey qualifies either, Saudi Arabia may be totalitarian lite, But one is still Freer in Saudi Arabia then they were in the Soviet union.

Saying that, communist countries are typically totalitarian. The problem is, you are conflating economic philosophy with political philosophy.

The communist countries were both.

 

[PoS]

If the crime rate goes down then its a good idea.

 

[Ikari]

New York City to Remove Mentally Ill People From Streets Against Their Will​

Acting to address “a crisis we see all around us” toward the end of a year that has seen a string of high-profile crimes involving homeless people, Mayor Eric Adams announced a major push on Tuesday to remove people with severe, untreated mental illness from the city’s streets and subways.

Mr. Adams, who has made clearing homeless encampments a priority since taking office in January, said the effort would require involuntarily hospitalizing people who were a danger to themselves, even if they posed no risk of harm to others, arguing the city had a “moral obligation” to help them.
========
I have mixed feelings about this. While the mentally Ill could use help, removing people who arent a threat seems fascist.

I mean, the only thing to say is that apparently this is aimed at those who may be a threat to themselves or others.

Still forced hospitalization doesn't seem like it's a good plan, and I'm not sure it's going to work.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

About 60 years ago, reformers with the best of intentions abolished the old fashioned "loony bins". Now, instead of rubber rooms, the insane get to sleep in jail cells, under bridges, or in abandoned buildings, tent encampments etc. and make everyone else feel/be unsafe. Sometimes best intentions go awry.

If a city builds some sort of improved facilities, you get the "Field of Dreams" effect: If you build it, they will come. The less punitive you are, the larger homeless population you will have.

This is Not a Prescription, JUST A DESCRIPTION.

Flophouses. Yes, I said it.
FLOPHOUSES.
When I first arrived in Minneapolis to attend college in the Seventies, I found out that the school messed up my admissions and I was accidentally scheduled to start January the following year instead of that fall. It was still August and there was NO housing accommodations for me because other prospective students already HAD what had been intended for me. So I had no housing and I had to find some quick because I was warned that Minnesota winters were deadly.

I found the downtown day labor outfits and found a flophouse to stay in until school started. I swept factory floors, loaded and unloaded rail cars and trucks, I did dishwashing out at the airport, I packed agricultural product, I did basic assembly, I dug ditches, I did whatever menial work the day labor had available, for what amounted to about 35 bucks a day, fifteen or so going to the flophouse every night.
Yes it was far from stellar, yes I had some pretty awful neighbors, (some of whom were mentally ill) yes I had to share a community bathroom at the end of the hall, yes I found some of my stuff missing on a couple of occasions. It was a flophouse, an old hotel that no ordinary person would see as a valid place to stay.
It was pretty much what we see in The Blues Brothers when Elwood puts up Jake for the night to the tune of Chicago El trains and old jazz records.

"Hey boy, didja remember my Cheez Whiz?"

But it did beat the Hell out of living on the street, which simply isn't possible in Minneapolis in the winter, by the way.
We mow down these old hotels thinking we're eliminating urban blight but in reality we've been eliminating the only options some of the poor and mentally ill have ever had.
We need to recognize that as undesirable as they might seem on the surface, old flophouses serve an important role in keeping a roof over the heads of those who can least afford it. Even the most hopeless able-bodied vagrant can scrape up what used to amount to the Seventies equivalent of rent for one night.

And those who are in too bad a shape to even do that aren't what I am talking about.
They are a different category altogether and require mental health and medical intervention.

 

[Anthony60]

Trump won't risk coming to the city at all.

I just hope they keep an eye out for Joe. Can you imagine, if he gets loose on a trip to NYC? He would get scooped right up! "President Missing" headlines all over. Oh, that would be bad. On second thought, it might actually be good.

 

[Blue Dog]

I can see both sides of the argument.

Depending on the severity of illness there are people who are threats to the public. Sorry but they cannot be on the street.

The flip side being people getting swept up who are not necessarily as sick making the policy draconian.

 

[vanceen]

This thread is a good example of a principle I've noticed in political discourse.

Let's talk welfare assistance to the poor as an example.

One side says, "There's a moral hazard here. You might create a situation where generation after generation is living off handouts, undermining society."

The other side says either:

a) "No, there's no moral hazard, no one will do that", or
b) "You just hate the poor and want them to suffer"

So for the first side, the fact that there is a potential risk is enough reason to do nothing at all.

The other side says there is no risk at all, so don't let it bother us, go ahead.

Whereas the intelligent and rational approach would be "There's a need to offer help to people in dire economic straits, let's figure out how to do it while minimizing the very real risks."

In this case we see:

1. It's good to get people who are incapable of making good decisions off the streets. But it might lead to abuse, so we can't do it.
2. Just do it, they can't take care of themselves and they might freeze.

Whereas the rational approach would be "There are people who are incapable of sound decisions out in the cold. Since they are incompetent, we have an obligation to take care of them whether they like the idea or not. There's also a potential for abuse, so let's figure out how to mimimize it".

 

[PoS]

Flophouses. Yes, I said it.
FLOPHOUSES.
When I first arrived in Minneapolis to attend college in the Seventies, I found out that the school messed up my admissions and I was accidentally scheduled to start January the following year instead of that fall. It was still August and there was NO housing accommodations for me because other prospective students already HAD what had been intended for me. So I had no housing and I had to find some quick because I was warned that Minnesota winters were deadly.

I found the downtown day labor outfits and found a flophouse to stay in until school started. I swept factory floors, loaded and unloaded rail cars and trucks, I did dishwashing out at the airport, I packed agricultural product, I did basic assembly, I dug ditches, I did whatever menial work the day labor had available, for what amounted to about 35 bucks a day, fifteen or so going to the flophouse every night.
Yes it was far from stellar, yes I had some pretty awful neighbors, (some of whom were mentally ill) yes I had to share a community bathroom at the end of the hall, yes I found some of my stuff missing on a couple of occasions. It was a flophouse, an old hotel that no ordinary person would see as a valid place to stay.
It was pretty much what we see in The Blues Brothers when Elwood puts up Jake for the night to the tune of Chicago El trains and old jazz records.

"Hey boy, didja remember my Cheez Whiz?"

But it did beat the Hell out of living on the street, which simply isn't possible in Minneapolis in the winter, by the way.
We mow down these old hotels thinking we're eliminating urban blight but in reality we've been eliminating the only options some of the poor and mentally ill have ever had.
We need to recognize that as undesirable as they might seem on the surface, old flophouses serve an important role in keeping a roof over the heads of those who can least afford it. Even the most hopeless able-bodied vagrant can scrape up what used to amount to the Seventies equivalent of rent for one night.

And those who are in too bad a shape to even do that aren't what I am talking about.
They are a different category altogether and require mental health and medical intervention.

I agree with this. Enforce vagrancy laws, but instead of putting them in jail, build workhouses and make them earn a place to stay.

 

[ClaraD]

New York City to Remove Mentally Ill People From Streets Against Their Will​

Acting to address “a crisis we see all around us” toward the end of a year that has seen a string of high-profile crimes involving homeless people, Mayor Eric Adams announced a major push on Tuesday to remove people with severe, untreated mental illness from the city’s streets and subways.

Mr. Adams, who has made clearing homeless encampments a priority since taking office in January, said the effort would require involuntarily hospitalizing people who were a danger to themselves, even if they posed no risk of harm to others, arguing the city had a “moral obligation” to help them.
========
I have mixed feelings about this. While the mentally Ill could use help, removing people who arent a threat seems fascist.

if they are a danger to themselves, they need to be hospitalized. If a person is a danger to themselves, they also can by contrast be a danger to someone else.
Destroying encampments isn't the answer either...they need real solutions.