HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2019, 6:18 AM
AviationGuy AviationGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt View Post
Why not just enforce laws, document offenders and as they continue to rack up violations, mandatory prison sentences.

You know, kinda like how the law treats normal people.

Take a shit in the street in front of children, 5 years in jail. That'll clean up the streets real quick.
And then you have the Austin case where we just lost our enforcement capabilities due to the idiot mayor and city council. Even with the ordinances, little was done, and the city and highway department were making little effort or progress in cleaning up the tons of garbage in and around the camps. So now it will most definitely explode into a Seattle situation here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2019, 7:20 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,124
In view of the above several posts I thought I'd quote at length from California's Mental Health Conservatorship law (it's public information so not copyrighted):

Quote:
What is a mental health (LPS) conservatorship?

A mental health (LPS) conservatorship makes one adult (called the conservator) responsible for a mentally ill adult (called the conservatee). These conservatorships are only for adults with mental illnesses listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

The most common illnesses are serious, biological brain disorders, like:
Schizophrenia,
Bi-Polar Disorder (Manic Depression),
Schizo-affective Disorder,
Clinical Depression, and
Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.

LPS conservatorships are not for people with organic brain disorders, brain trauma, retardation, alcohol or drug addiction, or dementia, unless they also have one of the serious brain disorders listed in the DSM.

LPS comes from the names of the California legislators who wrote the LPS Act in the 1970s: Lanterman, Petris, and Short.

What powers does an LPS conservator have?

An LPS conservatorship gives legal authority to one adult (called a conservator) to make certain decisions for a seriously mentally ill person (called a conservatee) who is unable to take care of him/ herself.

If asked, the Court can give LPS conservator the duty to take care of and protect the seriously mentally ill person (conservator of the person) and also the power to handle the financial matters of the seriously mentally ill person (conservator of the estate). The conservator can give consent to mental health treatment, even if the conservatee objects. S/he can legally agree to the use of psychotropic (mind-altering) drugs (but the conservatee may physically refuse to take them).

Also, the conservator can agree to place the mentally ill person in a locked facility if a psychiatrist says it is needed and the hospital agrees to take the person, whether or not the conservatee agrees. The conservator can also decide where the mentally ill person will live when s/he is not in a locked psychiatric facility.

An LPS conservator must have enough medical and social information before making decisions for the conservatee. And, the conservator must only take actions that are best for the mentally ill person. The LPS conservator can also make financial decisions for the seriously mentally ill person, like paying the bills and collecting a person’s income.

Does an LPS conservatee always have to be in a locked facility?

No. But, LPS conservatorships often begin when the person’s symptoms become so severe that they interfere with self-care and safety, and s/he is placed in a locked facility.

When can I establish an LPS conservatorship?

The Court will not let you establish an LPS conservatorship unless it finds beyond a reasonable doubt, that the mentally ill person, is gravely disabled. Gravely disabled means that, because of a mental disorder, the person cannot take care of his/her basic, personal needs for food, clothing, or shelter.

If you or another adult can provide for the person’s basic needs, the Court cannot find the person to be gravely disabled. This means you may not need to establish a conservatorship.

How do I decide if the mentally ill person is gravely disabled?

You do not decide. You must take the mentally ill person to a psychiatrist authorized to do LPS evaluations. The psychiatrist must say the person is gravely disabled. And, s/he must make a referral to the Office of the Public Guardian .
http://www.scscourt.org/self_help/pr...ship_lps.shtml

It seems to me that this law gives the courts and authorities sufficient power if they would use it. It seems pretty clear that half-naked, scrawney people San Franciscans and residents of other cities wake up to each morning and find sprawled in their doorways are not able to meet their basic personal needs by any reasonable standard.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2019, 11:47 AM
wg_flamip wg_flamip is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Toronto
Posts: 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
I'm conservative as they come. We should NOT as taxpayers fund a drug addict to live in a house. They don't work and do drugs all day, why should we fund that? They are bloodsuckers of society. Now, I DO think we should help these people kick their habit.
IIRC, it costs society more to keep homeless people homeless than it does to house them, as homelessness comes with substantial costs to emergency services, law enforcement, &c. Additionally, kicking an addiction is hard enough when you have a full belly and a roof over your head: Housing the homeless is an important first step in their road to recovery.

WRT this thread at large, it's interesting to see the same idea over and over again—that homeless people are either mentally ill (and, presumably, non-compliant with a sufficient mental health regimen*) or they're addicts, as if addiction is not itself a mental illness. Mentally healthy people do not become addicts.

*Great way to moralize and justify inaction, but not all mental illness is treatable to the point where becoming totally independent is possible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2019, 1:17 PM
Kenmore Kenmore is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Uptown
Posts: 584
Lots of hardcore right-wing talking points ITT when it comes to addiction and best practices. Par for the course around here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2019, 2:47 PM
uaarkson's Avatar
uaarkson uaarkson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Back in Flint
Posts: 1,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
I'm conservative as they come. We should NOT as taxpayers fund a drug addict to live in a house. They don't work and do drugs all day, why should we fund that? They are bloodsuckers of society. Now, I DO think we should help these people kick their habit.
In 11 years, the most ignorant post I've ever read on this website.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2019, 2:56 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Jos Connaissant
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 39,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenmore View Post
Lots of hardcore right-wing talking points ITT when it comes to addiction and best practices. Par for the course around here.
SSP as a hard core right-wing echo chamber? Seriously?
__________________
I really should be getting paid for this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2019, 3:40 PM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,872
Drugs addicts who need help are leeches and don't deserve a simple bed to sleep in but what are your thoughts on the uber wealthy who hoard capital and place it in off shore accounts? hmmmm
__________________
Spawn of questionable parentage!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2019, 3:42 PM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
SSP as a hard core right-wing echo chamber? Seriously?
He's right though, there are a number of die hard radian conservatives on here who love echoing their super hot takes regardless of how irrational or contradictory.

I mean just look at the OP.
__________________
Spawn of questionable parentage!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2019, 3:59 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Jos Connaissant
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 39,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One View Post
He's right though, there are a number of die hard radian conservatives on here who love echoing their super hot takes regardless of how irrational or contradictory.

I mean just look at the OP.
Yes they are here but it's far from the majority. SSP most definitely leads left. At least in the forums I frequent: Canada and general discussions/skybar.
__________________
I really should be getting paid for this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2019, 4:43 PM
edale edale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 440
It is surprising to see how many conservatives there are on this board. However, I think the responses to this topic are more a result of frustration of the new normal of life in most western cities. Those of us in West Coast cities walk by tents and crazy, unpredictable homeless people every day, and have seen these problems get worse and worse. In response, places like LA and SF continue to vote for tax increases to try to solve the problem, but have not seen conditions improve at all. When a new supportive housing project is announced, it's not uncommon for the per unit cost to exceed $600,000! Obviously that approach isn't going to fix anything unless the Federal governement decided to just start building housing en masse. At the same time, many of these cities have decided to stop enforcing camping bans on public streets. Los Angeles just decided that the city will stop sweeping up the camps downtown, as homeless advocates said that the homeless were having their possessions taken away from them. Nevermind that most of these possessions are literally trash that they hoard...because again, mental illness. But rather than having the courage to say "we are not going to let our streets and sidewalks turn into open sewers and garbage dumps" city officials are instead just caving to activist pressure and disguising it as compassion.

I'm a pretty liberal guy, but I'm pretty much of the mindset that something needs to change. We can be compassionate while still enforcing laws and maintaining some semblance of cleanliness. I don't think people from outside the west coast really understand the daily frustrations here. Especially as a daily transit rider, it gets very old very fast to always have to deal with people having mental episodes on the subway, stepping over shit and needles on the sidewalk, getting emails at work about avoiding the 'typhus outbreak zone' that has extended out from Skid Row. People shouldn't have to deal with that shit in a country like the US. It's kind of maddening.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2019, 5:11 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Jos Connaissant
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 39,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by edale View Post
It is surprising to see how many conservatives there are on this board. However, I think the responses to this topic are more a result of frustration of the new normal of life in most western cities. Those of us in West Coast cities walk by tents and crazy, unpredictable homeless people every day, and have seen these problems get worse and worse. In response, places like LA and SF continue to vote for tax increases to try to solve the problem, but have not seen conditions improve at all. When a new supportive housing project is announced, it's not uncommon for the per unit cost to exceed $600,000! Obviously that approach isn't going to fix anything unless the Federal governement decided to just start building housing en masse. At the same time, many of these cities have decided to stop enforcing camping bans on public streets. Los Angeles just decided that the city will stop sweeping up the camps downtown, as homeless advocates said that the homeless were having their possessions taken away from them. Nevermind that most of these possessions are literally trash that they hoard...because again, mental illness. But rather than having the courage to say "we are not going to let our streets and sidewalks turn into open sewers and garbage dumps" city officials are instead just caving to activist pressure and disguising it as compassion.

I'm a pretty liberal guy, but I'm pretty much of the mindset that something needs to change. We can be compassionate while still enforcing laws and maintaining some semblance of cleanliness. I don't think people from outside the west coast really understand the daily frustrations here. Especially as a daily transit rider, it gets very old very fast to always have to deal with people having mental episodes on the subway, stepping over shit and needles on the sidewalk, getting emails at work about avoiding the 'typhus outbreak zone' that has extended out from Skid Row. People shouldn't have to deal with that shit in a country like the US. It's kind of maddening.
I can understand how you feel if all of this is something you experience on a regular basis.

As to your point that I highlighted, I think you're right.

People are mistaking actual committed conservatives for people who might express just one conservative-ish view from time to time, or even... people who express views that might be *perceived* as conservative.

I mean, do you really deserve to be labelled a nasty, selfish alt-right dude simply for saying that all of the above crap you are subjected to is unpleasant?

I don't think so, but many on here would disagree. And likely will.

As a result the broader discourse ends up inadvertently pushing unwitting people into the conservative camp - or at least the goalposts move in order to encompass people and views who aren't or weren't fundamentally conservative.

Cue the classic "I didn't move - it's the political labels that shifted around me."
__________________
I really should be getting paid for this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2019, 5:41 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
I can understand how you feel if all of this is something you experience on a regular basis.
I obviously can't tell you his experiences but I can tell you it's mine. This is what downtown living in one of America's wealthiest, most innovative cities has become and I believe it's due to egregiously misplaced "compassion" and somehow finding in our laws a right to degrade yourself and your community.

Quote:
As to your point that I highlighted, I think you're right.

People are mistaking actual committed conservatives for people who might express just one conservative-ish view from time to time, or even... people who express views that might be *perceived* as conservative.

I mean, do you really deserve to be labelled a nasty, selfish alt-right dude simply for saying that all of the above crap you are subjected to is unpleasant?

I don't think so, but many on here would disagree. And likely will.

As a result the broader discourse ends up inadvertently pushing unwitting people into the conservative camp - or at least the goalposts move in order to encompass people and views who aren't or weren't fundamentally conservative.

Cue the classic "I didn't move - it's the political labels that shifted around me."
Christianism and the other stuff that today gets labeled "conservative" is not what conservatism used to be or necessarily is. But I don't want to go into all that here. It would provoke the sort of fight that would get the thread locked.

This thread is about the increasingly unpleasant conditions in some of America's most physically beautiful and economically productive cities . . . on a web site about cities. These conditions are the sort of thing that will end and make transient a "return to the cities" movement that is only a few decades old. It almost seems as if, unless we find a solution of some sort, America can't have cities anymore because we've forgotten how to live with so many people in close proximity who enhance rather than degrade each others' experiences.

We aren't actually alone in this or the first country to experience it. From everything I've read, Victorian London had an awful lot of the same problems. Actually many of Europe's great cities did at the end of the 19th century. Somehow, they brought things around--maybe because of the mass slaughter and deprivation of wartime conditions in 2 great wars. I don't know. But we need to find our own path.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2019, 5:54 PM
Obadno Obadno is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,301
I havent read anything about this thread but the title seems totally hyperbolic

that is all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2019, 5:57 PM
Chef's Avatar
Chef Chef is online now
Paradise Island
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 1,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
SSP as a hard core right-wing echo chamber? Seriously?
It is becoming one. It may not be Trumpian but it is a bastion of center right neoliberalism with a healthy side of petit bourgeois disdain for the underclass.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2019, 6:03 PM
Obadno Obadno is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chef View Post
It is becoming one. It may not be Trumpian but it is a bastion of center right neoliberalism with a healthy side of petit bourgeois disdain for the underclass.
I think I just threw up in my mouth a bit.

Nothing like privileged urbanite obsessives complaining about bourgeois disdain.

Opining about the plight of the working class while sipping wine and blogging on their brand new laptops in a trendy overpriced apartments.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2019, 6:03 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Jos Connaissant
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 39,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chef View Post
It is becoming one. It may not be Trumpian but it is a bastion of center right neoliberalism with a healthy side of petit bourgeois disdain for the underclass.
How does that last bit fit in with the alt-right allegations? Those two things seem to be in contradiction.

"Petit bourgeois disdain for the underclass" is very predominantly a left wing thing these days.
__________________
I really should be getting paid for this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2019, 6:05 PM
Chef's Avatar
Chef Chef is online now
Paradise Island
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 1,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno View Post
I think I just threw up in my mouth a bit.

Nothing like privileged urbanite obsessives complaining about bourgeois disdain.

Opining about the plight of the working class while sipping wine and blogging on their brand new laptops in a trendy overpriced apartments.
Take your projection elsewhere. I'm a 50 year old line cook. I will be working until I die, or I will be homeless at the end, one of the two. That is part of why I care about homelessness. I see it as a distinct possibility for myself.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2019, 6:31 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno View Post
I havent read anything about this thread but the title seems totally hyperbolic

that is all.
The site requires thread titles to be the same as the media used to begin them. The video I started this with--because I thought it was an incredibly vivid piece on the subject--was made by a Seattle TV station and focused on the problem in Seattle, but as I've said several times since beginning the thread, Seattle isn't unique or necessarily even the worst example.

It's not the title I would have used if I thought I had a choice.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2019, 6:42 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chef View Post
Take your projection elsewhere. I'm a 50 year old line cook. I will be working until I die, or I will be homeless at the end, one of the two. That is part of why I care about homelessness. I see it as a distinct possibility for myself.
Let's take this out of the realm of a "food fight" and use your comment to elucidate us all. If, when you someday become unable to cook and earn a living, will you allow yourself to put up a tent on the sidewalk of some high-priced city and lay in it all day drinking cheap wine (or smoking fentanyl), or will you move somewhere you have a chance of living a decent existence on whatever social benefits (Social Security, SSI, food stamps, Medicaid . . . whatever) you qualify for?

That's the thing that's hard to comprehend. Granted that cities like San Francisco, Seattle and the rest offer some benefits lower-cost cities don't (I've been through what SF provides the homeless and, in addition, its "general assistance" grant is a few hundred dollars a month higher than rural California counties), but the cost of living, especially housing, is so much higher than so many other places that it's hard to understand why anyone on a limited income would stay. After all, Social Security and most federal benefits are pretty much the same anywhere in the country and those program which do offer higher benefits in higher cost areas don't nearly compensate for the higher costs.

I mean I have neighbors in southern Arizona who live in single family homes most of which they own (at least are paying for with a mortgage) and I suspect some of them have little income beyond Social Security. You can do that there . . . and it's not even the least costly place in America to live. That honor probably belongs to some places in the middle of the country far from the coasts or anything that qualifies as a "vacation destination". There's no way people not benefitting from rent control or inherited property could live in the coastal cities on Social Security.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2019, 6:44 PM
pdxtex's Avatar
pdxtex pdxtex is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by edale View Post
It is surprising to see how many conservatives there are on this board. However, I think the responses to this topic are more a result of frustration of the new normal of life in most western cities. Those of us in West Coast cities walk by tents and crazy, unpredictable homeless people every day, and have seen these problems get worse and worse. In response, places like LA and SF continue to vote for tax increases to try to solve the problem, but have not seen conditions improve at all. When a new supportive housing project is announced, it's not uncommon for the per unit cost to exceed $600,000! Obviously that approach isn't going to fix anything unless the Federal governement decided to just start building housing en masse. At the same time, many of these cities have decided to stop enforcing camping bans on public streets. Los Angeles just decided that the city will stop sweeping up the camps downtown, as homeless advocates said that the homeless were having their possessions taken away from them. Nevermind that most of these possessions are literally trash that they hoard...because again, mental illness. But rather than having the courage to say "we are not going to let our streets and sidewalks turn into open sewers and garbage dumps" city officials are instead just caving to activist pressure and disguising it as compassion.

I'm a pretty liberal guy, but I'm pretty much of the mindset that something needs to change. We can be compassionate while still enforcing laws and maintaining some semblance of cleanliness. I don't think people from outside the west coast really understand the daily frustrations here. Especially as a daily transit rider, it gets very old very fast to always have to deal with people having mental episodes on the subway, stepping over shit and needles on the sidewalk, getting emails at work about avoiding the 'typhus outbreak zone' that has extended out from Skid Row. People shouldn't have to deal with that shit in a country like the US. It's kind of maddening.
This dude gets it. Allowing tent camping is not compassionate. Its like dumping a giant bag of cat food out on the sidewalk. The strays will come out of the wood work. I'm done trying to explain this to anyone east of Denver. Next time you are in Portland, I'll take you on a little bike ride.
__________________
Portland!! Where young people go to retire.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:11 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.