Do you think the homeless situation in west coast cities will ever get better?

[hauntedheadnc]

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

In what world do these people contribute anything positive? Why do we put up with this crap?

Because asking that question about any group of people never ends well. Asking it about one group just leads to asking it about other groups.

100 years ago, they would have all been shoved into the building below until they either rehabilitated or died of old age. Every major city had a sanatorium large enough to fit thousands of indigent criminally insane homeless. Then we shut them all down and now *surprised Pikachu face* we can't figure out how to fix homelessness. The answer is clear:

The answer is actually clear, but unfortunately it's too expensive. The Oregon State Hospital experiment proved that institutionalization can work, but only if massive amounts of resources are poured into institutions to ensure that they don't end up the way institutions tend to: with naked residents wailing and rocking on the floor, caked in their own filth -- or some variation thereof.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

... to ensure that they don't end up the way institutions tend to: with naked residents wailing and rocking on the floor, caked in their own filth -- or some variation thereof.

Is it preferable to have people naked, wailing, caked in their own filth, and writhing on the sidewalk?

[hauntedheadnc]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Is it preferable to have people naked, wailing, caked in their own filth, and writhing on the sidewalk?

If you've specifically built a building, filled it with equipment, hired an army of staff -- and paid for it all with public money -- specifically to prevent that very scenario, and it's an utter failure, then really, what's the difference between that and spending that money on ineffective programs to help the homeless without the institution? If we're going to waste money should we concentrate on wasting it to ensure your sensibilities aren't offended?

Let's hear your solution to homelessness.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

If you've specifically built a building, filled it with equipment, hired an army of staff -- and paid for it all with public money -- specifically to prevent that very scenario, and it's an utter failure, then really, what's the difference between that and spending that money on ineffective programs to help the homeless without the institution? If we're going to waste money should we concentrate on wasting it to ensure your sensibilities aren't offended?

Let's hear your solution to homelessness.

But what you're describing is not the case. Institutions which formerly housed (often non-voluntarily) were not an utter failure, at least not in terms of resulting in the scenes on the streets we see today.

They didn't fail to prevent that -- they were largely shutdown by the 1980s and 90s in favor of a more integrated into the population / more humane approach to modes of "treatment". In that sense, their closures across the nation contributed to resulting in the scenes on the streets we see today.

So, the premise you're describing is not too coherent here.

The question I posed was more rhetorical than anything, because there is no easy answer (and I certainly do not profess to have it). I was just pointing out the situation of having the awful scene of humanity out on the street or having the same scene inside a controlled facility.

The question had nothing to do with "offending my sensibilities". It was a simply rhetorical question for discussion, so don't be a fucking bitchy cock. Asshole.

[hauntedheadnc]

Originally Posted by pj3000

But what you're describing is not the case. Institutions which formerly housed (often non-voluntarily) were not an utter failure, at least not in terms of resulting in the scenes on the streets we see today.

But they were. Residents were warehoused, not treated, and conditions were appalling. That's what led to the move to wipe out institutions. Where did you think that impetus came from -- just because? It was cheaper to dump them out on the street and let the situations that were playing out in private play out in public. And it was much cheaper than devoting the resources that it would have taken to run institutions properly -- which studies showed could have been done -- or to devoting the resources it would have taken to provide adequate community care.

Ironically enough though, some programs at some state institutions actually were quite successful -- such as sterilization programs in the name of eugenics. Do you really want to go there?

They didn't fail to prevent that -- they were largely shutdown by the 1980s and 90s in favor of a more integrated into the population / more humane approach to modes of "treatment".

And again, why do you think that happened? If conditions in institutions weren't medieval they'd still be around.

In that sense, their closures across the nation contributed to resulting in the scenes on the streets we see today.

Yes. We're seeing in public what had previously only played out in private.

The question I posed was more rhetorical than anything, because there is no easy answer (and I certainly do not profess to have it). I was just pointing out the situation of having the awful scene of humanity out on the street or having the same scene inside a controlled facility.

The question had nothing to do with "offending my sensibilities."

Are you willing to pay what it takes to have effective, humane large-scale institutions? Are you willing to pay what it would take to have effective community treatment? If not, then what's the point of shoving the homeless back into a warehouse of that institutional, puke-green tile? What does that accomplish if not just remove the problem from places where your delicate eyes might see? Is the actual problem actually being solved? If not, why bother?

...so don't be a fucking bitchy cock. Asshole.

Physician, heal thyself.

[pj3000]

^ I know the reasons for their widespread closure. I'm not advocating going to back to the torture chambers and experimentation model. I was not suggesting that with my rhetorical question. Given the two scenarios, what is preferable? Which represents the greater cost to society at large? Which represents the "better" scenario... are streets filled with lost and addicted souls in dangerous conditions better than what we had for much of the last century where we locked them up? Both suck.

I don't know the answers. But I do know that I would much rather see significant funding spent on residential treatment facilities, rather than the ineffective hodgepodge of "services" we have now. I'm all for paying much more to properly address serious health/society issues. So, it has nothing to do with my "sensibilities" or my "delicate eyes". It's a topic for discussion; you don't have to be a dick about it.

[hauntedheadnc]

Originally Posted by pj3000

^ I know the reasons for their widespread closure. I'm not advocating going to back to the torture chambers and experimentation model. I was not suggesting that with my rhetorical question. Given the two scenarios, what is preferable? Which represents the greater cost to society at large? Which represents the "better" scenario... are streets filled with lost and addicted souls in dangerous conditions better than what we had for much of the last century where we locked them up? Both suck.

Now we're getting somewhere. Yes, institutions sucked. Yes, street homelessness sucks. Therefore, institutions aren't a panacea. They could be a solution, mind you, but if this country isn't willing to fund universal healthcare for average citizens, it sure as shit isn't going to shell out what it would take to provide actual, effective mental healthcare and addiction treatment.

I don't know the answers.

And I'm glad you can admit that. Before, it rather sounded like you thought a coat of fresh paint on the old Taunton State Hospital would do the trick.

But I do know that I would much rather see significant funding spent on residential treatment facilities, rather than the ineffective hodgepodge of "services" we have now. I'm all for paying much more to properly address serious health/society issues.

Now we're really getting somewhere! I'm very happy to hear this, but the problem you'll run into is the one I already mentioned. America thrives thrives on having an alien other to shit on. America can't get through the day without a population to look down, and make itself feel better by saying those people (and it must be hissed) made their bed and now they must lie in it. America will not pay for universal healthcare. It will not pay for universal mental healthcare. It will not pay for adequate public treatment facilities for either. And it gains too much by having someone to shit on and shoulder the blame for all of society's problems. The homeless serve a purpose simply by being there to blame for everything wrong with American cities.

So, it has nothing to do with my "sensibilities" or my "delicate eyes". It's a topic for discussion; you don't have to be a dick about it.

Neither do you.

[badrunner]

We should be able to bring the institutions back and replicate some of the successes without turning it into a complete house of horrors. We shouldn't be using such foreboding structures, for starters. Just the layout of this building does not facilitate good mental health for anybody, patients and staff alike.

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

[hauntedheadnc]

Originally Posted by badrunner

We should be able to bring the institutions back and replicate some of the successes without turning it into a complete house of horrors. We shouldn't be using such foreboding structures, for starters.

We should, yes, and we could, no doubt, but we won't because it's too expensive.

[mousquet]

I saw homeless people literally shit on platforms and tracks of the subway here in Paris, which is an unbearable sight. You would vomit if you saw that. And they stink. I don't know how long they haven't washed, but it must be scary. When one of them gets in a subway car, everybody goes to the opposite side of the car. It is downright intolerable.

I'm no psychiatrist at all, so I don't really know what's wrong with them. Some seem normally sane, but very angry with society, and decided it wasn't worth any effort.
Some others are hit by mental illness of sorts...

Obviously, homelessness is only caused by lack of care. By the way, sometimes, people calling themselves "normally sane" should think twice about their own sanity. Because they may be insane on certain occasions.

As for myself, I'm some sort of a sensitive person. I must admit, I'm not brave enough to help the sick or homeless people in hospitals and stuff.
But I can give them money. That doesn't bother me. I always give money to beggars, that's no problem at all.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by pj3000

But what you're describing is not the case. Institutions which formerly housed (often non-voluntarily) were not an utter failure, at least not in terms of resulting in the scenes on the streets we see today.

They didn't fail to prevent that -- they were largely shutdown by the 1980s and 90s in favor of a more integrated into the population / more humane approach to modes of "treatment". In that sense, their closures across the nation contributed to resulting in the scenes on the streets we see today.

So, the premise you're describing is not too coherent here.

The question I posed was more rhetorical than anything, because there is no easy answer (and I certainly do not profess to have it). I was just pointing out the situation of having the awful scene of humanity out on the street or having the same scene inside a controlled facility.

The question had nothing to do with "offending my sensibilities". It was a simply rhetorical question for discussion, so don't be a fucking bitchy cock. Asshole.

For this scenario (putting the homeless in mental health institutions) to work, you need a societal culture that is okay with the gross illiberality of keeping them essentially jailed. Homelessness has skyrocketed in Canada ever since the old-school insane asylums closed down starting in the '80s and '90s. Nowadays, hospitals' mental health wards have to release the homeless as soon as they ask to be released, even when everyone but them knows it's obviously not in their best interest to throw them back to the streets like that.

It's not just a question of budget, it requires the acceptance of an authoritarian approach that's somewhat unpalatable to our modern democracies.

Consider that San Francisco spends what, >$100k per year per homeless person? It could run a nice asylum with that budget, easily. If it were legal to keep the homeless in prison in said asylum.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

We should, yes, and we could, no doubt, but we won't because it's too expensive.

Or because it's too illiberal / authoritarian.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by mousquet

I saw homeless people literally shit on platforms and tracks of the subway here in Paris, which is an unbearable sight. You would vomit if you saw that. And they stink. I don't know how long they haven't washed, but it must be scary. When one of them gets in a subway car, everybody goes to the opposite side of the car. It is downright intolerable.

The first time I visited Paris, I walked through Gare du Nord from the Eurostar towards the Paris Metro thinking that it was one of the sketchiest looking places I'd ever seen in my life. Paris has a lot of beauty, and it's obviously one of the greatest cities in the world, but it also has quite a bit of grittiness. Most (all?) of the world's greatest cities do. That's why some of these complaints about visible vagrancy on an urban focused website seem so weird and naive to me. You will encounter vagrancy in any city that is worth visiting.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by lio45

For this scenario (putting the homeless in mental health institutions) to work, you need a societal culture that is okay with the gross illiberality of keeping them essentially jailed. Homelessness has skyrocketed in Canada ever since the old-school insane asylums closed down starting in the '80s and '90s. Nowadays, hospitals' mental health wards have to release the homeless as soon as they ask to be released, even when everyone but them knows it's obviously not in their best interest to throw them back to the streets like that.

It's not just a question of budget, it requires the acceptance of an authoritarian approach that's somewhat unpalatable to our modern democracies.

Consider that San Francisco spends what, >$100k per year per homeless person? It could run a nice asylum with that budget, easily. If it were legal to keep the homeless in prison in said asylum.

Very true, and that's in part what I was getting at earlier... what is more acceptable/palatable to society? It became unpalatable to lock the mentally ill up in the 1960s with de-institutionalization movement... which was mainly a good thing... but they could not account for the effects the potent mix of widely-available street drugs (that would arrive with the 1970s-80s-90s-00s-10s-20s) would have on the mentally ill, now out in the world to make their own decisions and only being "served" via the community mental health clinic model.

So we have created a real conundrum. We don't want to lock people up for being mentally ill and/or drug addicts... but we also don't want to have people who are mentally ill and/or drug addicts out on the streets "spoiling" our cities. I don't know if there's a third option, or if some happy medium exists.

But I think that one way or another, greater acceptance of some measure of the "lock up" model will have to result, or greater acceptance of tent city drug camps will have to result... and maybe a bit of both.

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The first time I visited Paris, I walked through Gare du Nord from the Eurostar towards the Paris Metro thinking that it was one of the sketchiest looking places I'd ever seen in my life. Paris has a lot of beauty, and it's obviously one of the greatest cities in the world, but it also has quite a bit of grittiness. Most (all?) of the world's greatest cities do. That's why some of these complaints about visible vagrancy on an urban focused website seem so weird and naive to me. You will encounter vagrancy in any city that is worth visiting.

Gare du Nord is northern, huh. There is the Goutte d'Or district, boulevard de la Chapelle, Barbès, Stalingrad (creepy name over here, like - heil Stalin, comrade) and everything gritty where they sell heroin and crack at night.
The imperial architecture itself is cool, but so is it pretty much all over the central city.

If you want clean-looking rich people on cocaine and $300 bottles of Champagne, you go to the 8th and 16th arrondissements.
The 18th and 19th are not of that kind.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by mousquet

Gare du Nord is northern, huh. There is the Goutte d'Or district, boulevard de la Chapelle, Barbès, Stalingrad (creepy name over here, like - heil Stalin, comrade) and everything gritty where they sell heroin and crack at night.
The imperial architecture itself is cool, but so is it pretty much all over the central city.

If you want clean-looking rich people on cocaine and $300 bottles of Champagne, you go to the 8th and 16th arrondissements.
The 18th and 19th are not of that kind.

I've stayed in the 8th arrondissement before. It's okay, but it was a little boring to me. I like areas like the Latin Quarter better.

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I've stayed in the 8th arrondissement before. It's okay, but it was a little boring to me. I like areas like the Latin Quarter better.

Yeah, that's true. The 5th and 6th arrondissements may be the easiest oftentimes. Very central ones (1 to 4) are not too bad either. There is the youth, students, some of their bars, clubs and all. They always bring a bit of fresh air. That is precious.

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

It was the old Saint Louis State Hospital, one of the largest and most imposing structures ever built in the U.S.: https://www.asylumprojects.org/index...State_Hospital

It once held 2,000 people. Due to budget cuts and lawsuits, they downsized to a new building that can only accommodate 200 people. The remaining 1,800 were released back into the city where I'm sure they're all now CEOs and lawyers.

They then mutilated the State Hospital and it now looks like this:

It's peak patient population was 3900 in 1953—says so right at the link you posted. I guess "mutilated" isn't inaccurate since the demolished wings were quality historic architecture (circa 1907), but what remains is what was originally constructed in the 1860s, prior to the wing additions. Lastly, is there a reference to support your claim that "the remaining 1,800 were released back into the city"?

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

I'm not going to lie--I'm getting super frustrated with the filth and squalor being allowed all over west coast cities.

Not until the voters start holding politicians accountable. The same can be said of some of the homeless who have the capacity to make decisions for themselves but remain on the streets

Granted there are a lot of homeless on our streets who have addiction and/or mental health issues. I’ve done quite a bit of volunteer work with the homeless in Sacramento, San Luis Obispo and Chicago, and I can tell you that the populations are as different as night and day. Chicago also has homeless struggling with substance abuse and mental Heath issues. But nowhere near as many as California’s cities, Portland and Seattle

Many of our homeless, lack the capacity to make decisions for themselves and are consequently often pose a danger to themselves and others. This segment of the homeless population would benefit from temporary or permanent State hospitalization if families don’t agree to assume custody. For those who retain their decision making capabilities, the State should offer both temporary housing and drug rehabilitation and/or job training. Yes it would be expensive and take time to construct hospital and housing facilities, but I think it would save money in the long run.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

Not until the voters start holding politicians accountable. The same can be said of some of the homeless who have the capacity to make decisions for themselves but remain on the streets

Granted there are a lot of homeless on our streets who have addiction and/or mental health issues. I’ve done quite a bit of volunteer work with the homeless in Sacramento, San Luis Obispo and Chicago, and I can tell you that the populations are as different as night and day. Chicago also has homeless struggling with substance abuse and mental Heath issues. But nowhere near as many as California’s cities, Portland and Seattle

Many of our homeless, homeless lack the capacity to make decisions for themselves and are consequently often pose a danger to themselves and others. This segment of the homeless population would benefit from temporary or permanent State hospitalization if families don’t agree to assume custody. For those who retain their decision making capabilities, the State should offer both temporary housing and drug rehabilitation and/or job training. Yes it would be expensive and take time to construct hospital and housing facilities, but I think it would save money in the long run.

There is no way to hold 9th Circuit Court judges accountable; they serve for life. And they have ruled that cities on the West Coast cannot enforce laws related to homelessness until and unless they have a bed for every head. The irony is that any West Coast city that could house every unsheltered homeless person would immediately attract enough homeless people from the rest of the country to fill all the shelter beds and invoke the 9th Circuit Court's ruling against enforcing homeless laws.

Chicago doesn't have to live under that ruling.