Some find it brutal. But if done the right way, for the right people, it can work.
Whoever wrote this byline should be shot.
It’s trying to change policy really around three different issues. First, it’s trying to expand the use of civil commitments; that’s involuntary mental health treatment. It’s usually reserved for people who are a danger to themselves, danger to others, or unable to meet their basic needs. And he’s looking to expand that. It’s not totally clear how he’s gonna do that, because that’s determined by state law, but in any case, that’s one of his objectives.
Just put people without homes in homes it is literally that fucking simple. Homelessness is one of the things that libs love overcomplicating more than nearly any other societal issue
Have you considered this though?
In the UK, there are literally more vacant houses than homeless people.
Landlords can jump off a cliff.
that’s broadly true in the US too but much of the housing stock is in rural and suburban areas that just compound poverty (requiring cars/there’s no work) so the lack of housing is still acute in cities
I don’t see why we have to stop at housing why not provide food and healthcare too
of course, there’s just a misunderstanding that we could seize all the vacancies in a city or wherever and actually house the local houseless, which is not necessarily true despite the national statistics
Naturally, the real solution is to build more luxury apartments and parking lots for the prospective tenants.
5% of the units will be “low income” for 4 years after construction. If you criticize this development plan in any way you’re pro-homelessness, btw
Fuck, have you been spying on me? How did you perfectly quote my city council??
Yeah but if that person gets a home then why did I have to pay for MY home??? Checkmate liberal.
We’re also going to defund St. Judes Children Hospital since those kids don’t pay for their healthcare either. I’m tired of handouts.
Point out that the root cause of the housing crisis is the commodification of housing and watch their heads spin. The solution is so simple but some parasite can’t profit off of human needs, so it’ll never happen.
They do love overcomplicating it. I’ve heard so many wild and usually contradictory assertions and all from the same lib lol. Ex “they don’t even want to live in homes”, and “they live in homes, they just go out and beg because they don’t want to work.”
It’s like the, “they don’t want to go to shelters because they have to be sober” line from people who have never witnessed how fucked up shelters can be.
The same Harris-voting suburbanites who are like “this must be how the Germans must have felt in 1933” are also the same people who will casually talk about how we maybe need death squads to exterminate the homeless.
I fucking Anakin meme’d myself on this one the moment I read the sub-headline.
“Trump’s controversial homelessness solution? Blue states have done it for years.”
“And both are in the wrong, right?”
“Some find it brutal. But if done the right way, for the right people, it can work.”
“…”
“for the right people it can work” is a nice way of saying that the people who get stuffed into a blender don’t matter, and the real victims are in fact the parasites who have to look at the result of their work.
Whoever wrote this byline should be shot.
Some find it brutal. But if done the right way, for the right people, it can work.
what is this, democrats normalizing trump’s normalization of normal fascist democrat policies? this is how you get fascism!
Im so sick of my coworker who honestly believes all homeless people are mentally ill (and consequently deserve it). He said some shit today about how “you can just have 8 kids and get on section 8 housing and get paid thousands just for having kids” like what the fuck man that is so far from reality i don’t even know what to fucking say to it
i don’t even know what to fucking say to it
“If it’s so easy, then why haven’t you done it yourself?”
Archive link to bypass paywall: https://archive.is/u7LlE
[But] the tragic way this panned out was: the police came, they stopped him, they tried to handcuff him, because that’s how we take people to psychiatric hospitals. But he didn’t have hands, so they had to use zip ties. You know, that’s how we help people in America.
In the end, he was taken to a hospital. They shepherded him through the system, so he went on to a conservatorship. Once he was conserved, he was sent to a locked facility with barbed wire all around it, way far out of Los Angeles. He was there for months, and no one even really knew; none of the people who had a connection with him even knew where he was. And then, eventually, he stepped down out of that, and went to live in an unlocked facility and got his GED. And when I talked to him, I said, “What do you wish the system had done differently?” And he said, “I wish they had conserved me sooner.”
That’s a story that really sticks with me. It’s the happy story of civil commitment, but with a lot of unnecessary pain and suffering along the way. Way to go, Serge. Seems like he’s doing pretty well.
Earlier:
So this has been largely an initiative that is coming from, you know, blue coastal states. And what we’ve seen is that there’s been almost a reframing of coercion as a form of compassion
The cognitive dissonance to tell this anecdote as a feel good narrative in an article discussing how involuntary civil commitments are used in cruel and ineffective ways and how that’s a systemic issue.
huh thanks, it didn’t put a paywall up the first time I opened it.
As someone who has been committed before, it only worked when good meds were found, and because of the support of my family. Oh,and trained, compassionate staff.
None of which falls out of nowhere.
Blue states have done it for years!
So…doing nothing?
Worse than nothing actually.
Damn, Trump’s actually not that bad
