The San Francisco Trash/Needles/Poop in the Streets Containment Thread (Napa: plantation, bike)

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Matadora

You must have misread what I posted. I was not talking about anything you just posted.

You stated that most mentally ill don't meet the criteria of being a danger to themselves or others. I simply stated that a lot of mentally ill folks meet that criteria especially the ones wondering around on the streets with no where to live.

I didn't misread anything- this is what I posted:

Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
SCOTUS has ruled that you can only detain the mentally ill who are a grave danger to themselves or pose a serious threat to others. Very few mentally ill people meet that criteria.

To which you responded:

Originally Posted by Matadora

Actually a lot of mentally ill folks meet that criteria...especially the one's wondering the streets with no where to live.

I provided data that clearly proved that not very many people at all meet that criteria and of those that do, they are rarely detained more than 72 hours. I think you are confused.

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

I didn't misread anything- this is what I posted:
To which you responded:
I provided data that clearly proved that not very many people at all meet that criteria and of those that do, they are rarely detained more than 72 hours. I think you are confused.

See my last link. I've been saying this since I've seen you post over and over the 72 hour bs law currently in effect. This law needs to be changed. Not sure if this bill is the answer but the 72 hour hold law is pure BS!

"Current conservator laws are inadequate," Wiener said after a press conference held at a supportive housing site in San Francisco.

"After 72 hours or a 14-day hold the individuals are brought to court for an extension, and they appear sober and lucid because they've been held with treatment, so the judge has no basis to continue holding them."

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Wtf circle are you trapped in today? No, most mentally ill don’t meet the legal criteria of being a danger to themselves or others. Newsflash: Matadora, no matter high highly she thinks of herself, does NOT set the legal definition and criteria for the mentally ill being a danger. Think what you will ... the courts will not recognize your protest and definitions.

LOL you two are a riot. Think what you want and keep wearing those bleeding heart glasses and think what ever it is that get's you through the rants you post.

In the meantime back to life and reality.

California’s growing mental health and homelessness crisis

Mental illness and homelessness are connected. But not how you might think

RESEARCH WEEKLY: Homelessness Increases among Individuals with Serious Mental Illness

Lets see if this Bill passes and see if it's handled effectively...I will just take a wild guess here and say I doubt anything run and controlled by CA government will not likely be a success.

Bill Aims to Help Homeless Suffering From Severe Mental Illness, Drug Addiction

Now why would this sort of Bill be proposed in the first place?...oh yes because there are hardly any mentally ill homeless in CA.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Matadora

See my last link. I've been saying this since I've seen you post over and over the 72 hour bs law currently in effect. This law needs to be changed. Not sure if this bill is the answer but the 72 hour hold law is pure BS!




LOL you two are a riot. Think what you want and keep wearing those bleeding heart glasses and think what ever it is that get's you through the rants you post.

In the meantime back to life and reality.

California’s growing mental health and homelessness crisis

Mental illness and homelessness are connected. But not how you might think

RESEARCH WEEKLY: Homelessness Increases among Individuals with Serious Mental Illness

Lets see if this Bill passes and see if it's handled effectively...I will just take a wild guess here and say I doubt anything run and controlled by CA government will not likely be a success.

Bill Aims to Help Homeless Suffering From Severe Mental Illness, Drug Addiction

Now why would this sort of Bill be proposed in the first place?...oh yes because there are hardly any mentally ill homeless in CA.

Speaking of lol ... ummm, no one said “there are hardly any mentally ill homeless in CA”. There’s lot’s of them. Severely ill mentally. About 30% of the homeless.

And I, for one, haven’t argued that most of them are capable of caring for themselves ... some are, in spite of their troubles, and some aren’t.

What several here, including me, have been pointing out is the courts have set criteria society / law enforcement is required to follow in determining which of those severely mentally ill are a danger to themselves and to others. I didn’t set the criteria. Sleepy and CA4Now didn’t set it either. All any of us have done is point to the legal standard to advise people like you that your personal definitions are not going to prevail in decision making processes.

You want to change the criteria? Knock yourself out. I’ll watch ... and chuckle at the conniption fits you’ll suffer in your quest. But, by all means, please go for it. Entertainment and distraction gets us all through our days

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Matadora

See my last link. I've been saying this since I've seen you post over and over the 72 hour bs law currently in effect. This law needs to be changed. Not sure if this bill is the answer but the 72 hour hold law is pure BS!

LOL you two are a riot. Think what you want and keep wearing those bleeding heart glasses and think what ever it is that get's you through the rants you post.

In the meantime back to life and reality.

Lets see if this Bill passes and see if it's handled effectively...I will just take a wild guess here and say I doubt anything run and controlled by CA government will not likely be a success.

Now why would this sort of Bill be proposed in the first place?...oh yes because there are hardly any mentally ill homeless in CA.

SB1045 has already been discussed in these forums, it is a conservatorship bill, but it does not give conservators the ability to put the mentally ill or drug addicted in locked down facilities for long periods of time, it's directed at providing services in the least restrictive environment possible, the specific language that addresses that issue in the bill states that the patient shall "Live in the most independent, least restrictive housing feasible in the local community, and, for clients with children, to live in a supportive housing environment that strives for reunification with their children or assists clients in maintaining custody of their children as is appropriate." So don't start doing the happy dance and scouting out locations for the new mental hospitals because institutionalization is not the goal of the bill.

I think anyone in their right mind knows that mental illness and substance abuse are serious problems for the chronic long term homeless, I'm not sure why you think you think you have to tell us that, no one in these forums denied it, what I attempted to demonstrate to you is that very few of the mentally ill meet the criteria for involuntary detention.

I think the bill makes sense and will help with the most recalcitrant homeless, but the problem is that it will only help people in a few counties because in order to implement the program a county has to have adequate supportive housing, medi-cal reimbursable mental health care, outpatient care and substance abuse programs as well as a number of other requirements, and most counties don't have those services.

PS Here's the entire bill if you care to read it: Bill Text - SB-1045 Conservatorship: serious mental illness and substance use disorders.

[Finper]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Ok then tell us what will work...I will be right here waiting. FYI I don't care if a given city provides shelter to the homeless or not so miss me with the bleeding heart BS. But the choice is binary; leave the homeless on the streets for give them a safe place to sleep at night, there is no third or fourth option period.

Still waiting? How about SF and LA start doing the exact opposite of what their doing now for the homeless and addicted because it sure as hell is not working.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Finper

Still waiting? How about SF and LA start doing the exact opposite of what their doing now for the homeless and addicted because it sure as hell is not working.

Please explain what the "exact opposite" is? You act like San Francisco and LA are giving all sorts of goodies to homeless people and that's simply not true. I'm sick and tired of trying to explain that California as well several other Western states have to comply with a circuit court decision that states that they can't arrest people for sleeping in public unless you offer them a place to sleep.

So with that in mind, please enlighten me as to specifically what these things are that cops can do to solve homelessness, I'm still waiting...

[BlakeJones]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

So with that in mind, please enlighten me as to specifically what these things are that cops can do to solve homelessness, I'm still waiting...

Cops can't solve homelessness, but they can solve quality of life for the non-homeless by arresting aggressive panhandlers and moving them off the sidewalks

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by BlakeJones

Cops can't solve homelessness, but they can solve quality of life for the non-homeless by arresting aggressive panhandlers and moving them off the sidewalks

... to where, for how long?

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by BlakeJones

Cops can't solve homelessness, but they can solve quality of life for the non-homeless by arresting aggressive panhandlers and moving them off the sidewalks

The police arrest people for aggressive panhandling when they observe them doing it, or when a citizen who witnessed it is willing to sign an citizens arrest but there are not enough cops in the world to park on on every street corner and stop aggressive panhandling. One way to stop aggressive panhandling is for local businesses to hire private security who can control the problem where it occurs which is usually around ATM's or in shopping areas.

It's not like SFPD doesn't respond to calls regarding the homeless:

According to Police Department data, the Department responded to 54,434 calls related to homeless individuals in the six month period between January 2017 and June 2017. The Department included calls for encampments, sitting/lying in public spaces, psychiatric holds (5150 requests), and aggressive panhandling in its six month analysis. The Department also reported that it believes the number of homelessness related calls for service has been increasing over the past several calendar years. [url="https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/BA_Report_PA_of_San_Francisco_Police_Department_06 1218.pdf"]https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/BA_Report_PA_of_San_Francisco_Police_Department_06 1218.pdf[/URL

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

... to where, for how long?

Exactly. Here's an analysis of how effective all of the arrests of the homeless were in reducing the number of homeless on the streets in SF.

In our June 2016 report to the Board of Supervisors, “Homelessness and the Cost of Quality of Life Laws,” we identified 60,491 homelessness related calls in the first nine months of calendar year 2015.3 Our report also found that the City spent $20.6 million in calendar year 2015 for sanctioning homeless individuals for violating quality of life laws. The Police Department accounted for 90 percent (or $18.5 million) of those enforcement costs but enforcement had no impact on the incidence of homelessness. Our report recommended the Board of Supervisors identify less expensive and more effective response strategies to homeless related calls for service besides dispatching Police officers [url="https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/BA_Report_PA_of_San_Francisco_Police_Department_06 1218.pdf"]https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/BA_Report_PA_of_San_Francisco_Police_Department_06 1218.pdf[/URL

]