
Seattle Faces Backlash After Easing on Crimes Involving Mental Illness - realbarack
https://www.npr.org/2019/07/12/736612514/seattle-faces-backlash-after-easing-up-on-punishing-crimes-involving-mental-illn
======
curtis
I think this is the first article I've read to use the term "visible
homelessness". For many people who live in Seattle, the world "homeless"
really means visibly homeless, but for many political activists, the word
includes people in shelters or living in the cars or otherwise keeping a low
profile while not having a permanent address. I'm no expert but I strongly
suspect that the best ways to help the visibly homeless and the not-visibly-
homeless are pretty different. But activists are more than willing to conflate
the two cases. This particularly arises in the case of affordable housing.
Housing may indeed be the primary problem for the not-visibly-homeless. It
seems pretty likely though (just based on observation) that the biggest
problems for the visibly homeless are mental illness and substance abuse.

I think we'd be better served by not talking past each other and instead make
it clear which kind of homeless problem we're talking about at any particular
time.

~~~
xenocyon
The evidence shows that housing-first policies applied to the worst cases
(chronically homeless single people with addiction) is effective and lowers
costs, in fact more so than for easier clients (families who have become
homeless more recently). However popular outrage culture insists on targeting
folks who have addiction with sweeps and incarceration instead, even though
the law-and-order response is more expensive and less humane. It seems our
urge to punish defeats our willingness to tolerate less retributive evidence-
based approaches. Source:
[https://www.npr.org/2019/05/17/724462179/episode-913-countin...](https://www.npr.org/2019/05/17/724462179/episode-913-counting-
the-homeless)

~~~
tmh79
I am for the "housing first" approach, but there is a clear moral hazard when
you provide free housing to the lowest rung, and then say that the minimum
cost of housing for the next group is like 1.5k/bedroom/month.

~~~
jbob2000
This is what’s keeping me living at home with my parents. I tried to move out
a few years ago, found an apartment that was $1,100 a month and plenty of
parking.

6 months after moving in, after having multiple bad experiences with tenants,
I realized I moved in to a “subsidized housing” apartment. There was lots of
parking available because 90% of the tenants weren’t allowed to drive.

It hurts to work all day to pay for stuff, only to come home to half your
neighbors lazing about drunk and stoned getting a free ride. It fucking sucks,
I could never escape the thought that I could just quit my job and smoke weed
all day and live pretty much the same as I was.

If I wanted to live in a condo, which doesn’t have subsidized housing, I’d
have to pay rents upwards of $2,200. So I moved back in with my folks until I
can buy something.

~~~
vkou
> It hurts to work all day to pay for stuff, only to come home to half your
> neighbors lazing about drunk and stoned getting a free ride.

I hear this all the time - yet I don't see many people particularly keen on
dropping out, and getting onto the free ride bus.

One of the problems with that free ride bus is that it doesn't go to great
places. It didn't sound like you were looking forward to the prospect of
living in subsidized housing for the rest of your life very much.

~~~
freyr
> _yet I don 't see many people particularly keen on dropping out_

Just open your eyes. Look around Seattle, or San Francisco, or Los Angeles, or
San Diego or any other city with mild weather, lenient law enforcement, and
generous welfare benefits. The number of homeless and housed "drop outs" is
astonishing.

~~~
lonelappde
It's not. It only looks like a large number because they are all crammed into
a small public space and not hidden inside condos and houses.

We have more of an epidemic of rich people squatting in hundreds of miles of
waterfront property and ruining shoreline access for the public.

~~~
freyr
Wrong.

Alameda County, 43% increase in homeless population in two years.

San Francisco, 17% increase.

Orange County, 42% increase.

Kern County, 50% increase.

In Seattle/King County, 28% increase in the chronically homeless population
from 2017 to 2018.

------
DoreenMichele
Many years ago, while living in Fairfield, CA and trying to get education
appropriate to becoming an urban planner, I had a class on _Homelessness and
Public Policy_ through SFSU. More recently, I spent several years homeless.

A very big issue in the US is housing policy which has steadily shrunk the
availability of basic housing, such as SROs and Missing Middle housing.

While we need some emergency services for the homeless population, I'm really
not for actively growing more homeless services as our primary approach to
trying to resolve this. We need to fix what's wrong with society that's
causing people to land in the street. Housing is a big part of that.

A few blog posts by me:

Why I'm not for "we need more homeless services!" as our primary approach:

[https://streetlifesolutions.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-
shirky-...](https://streetlifesolutions.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-shirky-
principle-and-homelessness.html)

Housing cost and homelessness:

[https://streetlifesolutions.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-
clear-c...](https://streetlifesolutions.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-clear-
connection-between-housing.html)

Missing Middle housing:

[https://streetlifesolutions.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-
missing...](https://streetlifesolutions.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-missing-
middle.html)

~~~
saas_sam
Have you been to SF or LA or Seattle? The crisis we are experiencing isn't
because rents are too high. That's a separate crisis affecting a different set
of people. The crisis this article is discussing, the really really bad
homelessness problem, comes in two forms: drug addiction and mental illness.
These people could not stay in an apartment if it cost $50 a month. Their
problems are far, far worse than poverty.

~~~
DubiousPusher
The groups 'homeless due to housing affordability' and 'homeless due to mental
health or drug problems'

As housing prices rise, there are people with mental health or drug issues who
are largely stable who lose their housing and then become unstable. There are
government organizations and nonprofits that can now provide less units of
housing to the same people because their money doesn't go as far. There are
people who are just at the edge of stability and whom their local community is
stabalizing and for whom moving to new affordable housing destabilizes. There
are halfway houses that seeing too many needful people turn out problematic
people they might've otherwise tolerated because they can bring in less
problematic people who equally need help.

~~~
dodobirdlord
Sure, some number of such people surely exist, but do we have a particular
reason to believe that it's actually a significant number? On these sorts of
major issues of policy a couple hundred people here and there are a rounding
error. There's no end of controversy about the various methods of counting
what percent of homeless people in high cost of living areas are "non-native";
everyone running such studies has an agenda, but the impression I've gotten is
that there is consensus that it's upwards of 50%. It seems implausible that a
significant number of people have been driven from a stable life to mental
illness wracked visible homelessness by the skyrocketing cost of housing in a
small number of major cities.

~~~
DubiousPusher
>Sure, some number of such people surely exist, but do we have a particular
reason to believe that it's actually a significant number

I would say, because places with affordable housing have far less
homelessness. And while correlation is not causation the correlation is very
compelling right now.

I can't say how many homeless people are mentally ill but stable people who
lost their housing but I will say this. Every mentally ill person that
experiences bouts of psychosis and whom doesn't have a strong support network
is one missed dose, one lost job, one episode away from homelessness.

~~~
cavisne
Places with affordable housing is a synonym for rural areas without government
services (or drug dealers).

The best place to be homeless is Seattle or SF because drug use and dealing is
legal (or at least not enforced), and there are plenty of shelters/other
support services. Thats why Portland puts homeless people on buses to Seattle.

Based on the polling it seems likely the rule of law will be reestablished in
Seattle after the next council election, so it will be an interesting way to
see if affordable housing was the true cause of the issue.

~~~
panopticon
> Places with affordable housing is a synonym for rural areas without
> government services (or drug dealers).

I may be misreading this, but it sounds like you're saying rural areas don't
have drug dealers? If so, that's patently false. Rural substance abuse rates
are generally within 5% of urban abuse rates. They certainly aren't picking up
that meth from the local grocery story.

------
ronnier
I live in Seattle but I'm currently in LA. Here in Santa Monica its out of
control. I just went to Starbucks and a homeless person was harassing everyone
in the line, very threatening -- and the security won't do anything about it.
We can't do anything about it or we'd be the one cracked down on.

I was in another coffee shop and a homeless was behind my chair with a lighter
trying to light my hair on fire. My wife was harassed in the same coffee shop
two days later.

I can't see how this isn't impacting tourism. Even when I went to Hawaii,
Waikiki was filled with homeless taking over all the public benches.

~~~
MrAlex94
I'll happily give my views as a tourist. I've just come back from a CA road-
trip and the homelessness I saw was absolutely devastating.

For some background, I'm from London. We have homeless here, but it's
different. I've very very rarely ever seen someone who is homeless here that
also has any immediately obvious mental health issues (of course, just my
experience). I try to interact with them as much as I can, I live in central
and I can't fathom how dehumanising of an experience it must be being ignored
by thousands of people a day. So a quick chat and an offer to buy food and
that's about it. All in all they are usually pleasant people and quite polite.
Now London is also different in the states in that - at least in my peer group
(16-25) - almost no-one carries cash. At all. Chip & Pin and contactless all
the way.

But the states was something else. The first city I was in was San Fransisco.
I had so many expectations of this city, but the sheer scale of homelessness
and the sheer amount of people who didn't care because it wasn't their problem
was absolutely mind bending. Something that is seared into my memories is that
of a young man who must've been around my age who in the most polite way and
with the most destroyed look on his face asked if I could "possibly spare any
change." Just the tone he said it with and the look on his face genuinely gave
me tears in my eyes as I walked with my girlfriend. I could only say I was
sorry that I didn't carry cash on me, but he didn't even wait for a response
as I assume he almost always gets ignored. We saw homeless tents all along the
street our hotel was on (Eddy Street) and they were literally shooting up
heroin, in view of everyone, a couple of steps away from the entrance.

Almost every other city we went to was the same. LA though was next level. I
can't remember the exact areas but it was near union station/the jewellery
district - but my goodness we literally walked down a different street and the
difference was night and day. Needles on the floor, a geezer walking past
throwing a bloody tube on the street, so many boarded up shops with signs that
looked maybe a few years old. Absolutely insane! It was even more surreal
seeing "luxury flats" overlooking those streets, it felt like some kind of
jest.

The last time I'd seen poverty (not just homelessness, poverty) like that was
when I was growing up in Tangiers. Honestly I feel so much for the homeless
over there because I have no idea how you're supposed to get out of it. At
least here we have some safety nets with social housing and benefits (although
there are definite cracks where people slip through). I really hope things get
better somehow - it was painful seeing how little passers by seemed to care (I
assume they are desensitised and have struggles of their own). We spoke to so
many Uber drivers about it and they would just blame the homeless - "It's all
their own fault. They can get help if they want to."

~~~
ben_jones
I live in SF and though I can back-up your experiences I do want to point out
that tourists often get an above average exposure to homelessness in this city
for the following reasons:

1) The tourist hotspots of Downtown and Civic Center have a disproportionate
amount of homeless due to their proximity to homeless services in the
Tenderloin as well as begging opportunities around large corporate
conferences. This is in contrast to North Beach, the Outter Sunset, Golden
Gate Park, and many other areas (I'm not saying there are NO homeless in the
latter areas just that IMO it is an entirely different experience). I wish
tourists would get outside the basic areas more, but that is largely SF's
fault because without a car it can be difficult.

2) Tourists usually choose below average accommodations in terms of cost,
which usually takes them directly to the Tenderloin. This makes sense because
hotel costs in Downtown are insane and geared towards corporate travelers.

3) European tourists are much more capable of taking public transit and as
such spend more time around major transit hubs (like Bart at Civic Center)
which is known as one of the worst stations in the Bay Area.

None of these points make what you experienced ok or acceptable. But it
highlights IMO the most important issue that so many people are running around
with only partial context and heavy biases towards the issues.

~~~
mav3rick
SF is a very small city. If someone only stays in Marina Presidio or Pac
Heights, I believe they are in their own bubble.

------
rsweeney21
The criminal justice system should not handle these cases. I don't consider
acts done by mentally ill people criminal. I have personal experience with
this.

My sister is bipolar and schizophrenic. For 30 years she was a little quirky,
but mostly normal. She worked at a private equity firm in New York, got
married, had a great life. Something changed around age 30. She started acting
strange. We initially thought it was just her normal quirkyness, but then
things started to escalate. She wouldn't stop talking about Prince Harry. She
said she wanted to marry him. We laughed it off.

Then she started talking about secret messages she was receiving from Prince
Harry. She believed she had been chosen as the princess and that ISIS was
trying to kill her to prevent Prince Harry from marrying her. She had all this
proof (hidden messages in the news, Instagram posts of bananas, crazy stuff).
She was convince that the government had put chips in our brains and were
controlling us. We realized that she needed help, but she refused to believe
she had a mental illness. There was absolutely nothing we could do BEFORE she
committed a crime. We knew it would happen, we knew it was only a matter of
time, but the criminal justice system would not do anything.

Finally, on Christmas day, she went on a rampage at my grandmas house and
destroyed a bunch of property. (We found a journal entry later where she said
she was sad because Santa Clause didn't come and pick her up and take her to
the North Pole like he was supposed to so she lost it.) We got lucky that it
was only property. She was put in jail for 24 hours and then let out on the
street at midnight without us knowing. She assaulted a police officer the next
day. She thought he was ISIS trying to kill her.

FINALLY, the criminal justice system did something. We had to hire lawyers to
plead with the judge to force her on to medication. We had stacks of tweets,
facebook messages, emails, etc that showed she was clearly delusional. They
finally agreed.

She is on meds now and has regular checkins with her parole officer to ensure
she stays on them. She is back to being a little quirky, but has no more
delusions. She has a job again and is happy.

We are lucky. It could have ended up a lot worse. The current system for
helping the mentally ill is totally broken.

~~~
maxaf
I have no personal experience with mental illness, but judging by your story
it seems that part of the problem was your sister's lack of willingness to
seek help. Most health insurance plans cover some kind of mental health
services, but the afflicted person must actively seek out such help. Compare
this with a broken leg: if I stepped wrong off the curb and broke my leg, I'd
be in in pain and clearly unable to walk. I would call 911 and have them pick
me up, take me to a hospital, patch me up, etc. The system to make all of that
happen is there.

It would appear that mentally ill individuals are unable to seek help. Is it
not the case that psychiatrists and mental hospitals exist and are covered by
health insurance? It seems unfair to point the finger only at the system
without acknowledging that helpers can't help without explicit consent on the
part of the person being helped, or without some legal means by which they can
be coerced to accept help.

~~~
ceejayoz
> I have no personal experience with mental illness, but judging by your story
> it seems that part of the problem was your sister's lack of willingness to
> seek help.

Would _you_ be willing to take serious anti-psychotic medication, with
significant side effects, if you were 100% certain you were perfectly sane?

~~~
maxaf
I for one am currently 100% certain that I'm perfectly sane, but that's just
my opinion, which, on balance, is worth about as much as the opinion of the
homeless guy on Broadway who yells at passersby all day long. I'm sure he also
thinks he's perfectly sane. Both such opinions are extremely subjective. In
fact, I'd brand as psychotic anyone possessing enough audacity to diagnose me
with mental illness. How dare they suggest that I've lost my marbles?

So, to answer your question: no, I'm not willing to take drugs, because I'm
100% certain that I'm perfectly sane.

IMHO this is what makes the mental health conversation so difficult: we don't
all seem to share a consistent worldview in the best of times, let alone when
one's mental faculties are impacted by illness. How can we find neutral
cognitive ground where a mentally ill person can be brought up to speed with
the Objectively So?

I suspect that the level of trust and compassion required to do this can only
materialize in a family setting. I also find it ironic that the absence of a
solid familial fabric is surely a significant contributor to mental illness to
begin with.

~~~
munificent
_> I suspect that the level of trust and compassion required to do this can
only materialize in a family setting. I also find it ironic that the absence
of a solid familial fabric is surely a significant contributor to mental
illness to begin with._

Hard to imagine a familial fabric more solid than the Kennedy dynasty, and
yet...

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_Kennedy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_Kennedy)

~~~
maxaf
Straitjackets are also made of fabric.

------
ajhurliman
Seattlites are desperate to conflate the housing "crisis" with homelessness,
but I'm not convinced the person yelling at the sky and swinging a drain pipe
at people in his alley narrowly missed his $5000 mortgage payment. It's
unfortunate that people with less means have to live further outside the city
and spend more of their commuting, but I don't it's unreasonable to assume
that people will make decisions on their own behalf to stay housed rather than
just live on the streets if rent is becoming too expensive.

~~~
TheMagicHorsey
Yeah, but it would be easier to find housing space govt. run shelters if
housing space was cheap.

~~~
ajhurliman
It's plenty cheap in Renton. I think it's unreasonable to put a homeless
shelter in the middle of downtown Seattle knowing that they're working with a
limited budget and that paying a premium on the lot will result in less beds.

~~~
techsupporter
There are two issues with this, and they both go to the heart of why
developing these services is so difficult:

1) Seattle residents have chosen to tax ourselves to pay for social services.
By and large, a taxing jurisdiction can't put services outside its
jurisdiction, so Seattle can't levy a tax and then use it to buy space in
Renton. Yet, Seattle is more or less the only jurisdiction in King County
willing to tax ourselves to pay for these services. The Eastside for damn sure
isn't, at least not for services to people who aren't sympathetic groups, and
would rather simply arrest people for vagrancy and haul them off to the King
County jail (which is, per state law, in the county seat, thus Seattle) and
then conveniently be somewhere else when the person bonds out of jail and
walks onto Seattle's streets.

Arguably the South King cities don't have the tax base to help shoulder the
load, Renton being one of the few that does, but that then gets into people
not being willing to vote for those taxes because, frankly, they don't want
to. So you have a situation where only Seattle is spending the lion's share of
the money but Seattle can't spend it outside of Seattle, land is expensive
virtually everywhere in Seattle, and King County's government has shown
precious little impulse to try to handle the problem at the county level. To
say nothing of Washington State's almost-total abdication of responsibility.

And then,

2) People get _incredibly vocal_ about homeless shelters and other services
for them. Just try putting a new shelter in Wallingford. Hell, just try
putting one in Bellevue's Eastgate, like they've been trying to do for a
decade. The lawsuits alone are just now starting to wrap up and the vocal
minority, realizing they've run out of court-based options, are running
candidates who sit on a platform of "yes it is needed but not here" and have
no answer for "but where?" because that's not the point.

I'm sure the good people of Renton would be vocally opposed to your idea to
"export Seattle's homeless problem" to Renton. Thus, the only areas that wind
up with shelters and other public services are the ones who either lack
political clout--like Pioneer Square and the ID--or are where those services
have always been...like Pioneer Square and the ID.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Bellevue actually kicks money back to Seattle for homeless shelters, along
with running their own (but near east gate, not a great locale).

Yes, Bellevue cops aren’t as soft as Seattle cops (they send riot squad out if
some guy is sleeping on a park bench), but it is still a liberal area.

Renton on the other hand...is basically a giant strip mall, homeless people
wouldn’t find much their even if they did setup shelters. And they already
have a lot of questionable characters in what passes for their downtown area
(I’ve taken the 565 a few times between Bellevue and the airport through
Renton).

------
DubiousPusher
This is a really simple problem that for some reason Americans just can't get
their heads around.

We have eliminated virtually every government intervention besides police
power. We have also seen our social institutions significantly divest their
social contributions.

Therefore the criminal justice system has become the catch all. It is expected
to handle the mentally ill, the homeless, the drug addicted, problematic
families, neighborhood disputes and more.

Every now and then, we see the consequences of that divestiture and it shocks
us. We see people who only really need mentorship, medical care or friendship
being treated like hardened criminals and we see how that treatment corrupts
these people with otherwise fairly socially benign failings.

So we pull back on the leash of the criminal justice system. These people
begin to rejoin our society but with no assets, no standing, little to no
mental healthcare. And unsurprisingly this influx of invested citizens gets
people's attention. And regardless of whether crime genuinely increases these
people are newly visible and easy to associate with any anecdote of crime and
violence.

So people predictably turn against them and against the pull back. But to fix
this problem you have to do two things Americans are loath to do. You must tax
and spend money to build institutions that are not police. And you must give
those institutions some power to intervene sometimes against the will of those
they are intervening with. And I have no illusions. Involuntary commitment to
mental health care and drug treatment and community involvement are often ugly
but Americans make it clear over and over that even though vagrants and
homeless are generally not a problem that much affects those other than the
vagrants and homeless themselves we will never collectively tolerate their
presence.

The options seem to be building institutions to specialize in the assistance
and care of these people or continue to use one monolithic system and continue
this cycle.

~~~
neaden
I would add that besides the police we outsource a lot of this stuff to public
transportation workers and librarians. All night subways operate as mobile
shelters, especially in winters and libraries are frequently the only place a
homeless person can stay during the day without getting kicked out or
interacting with the police. Unfortunately we don't really prepare
transportation/library workers with the resources to deal with them most of
the time.

~~~
DubiousPusher
Agreed 100%. And forget even having a place to be. Just finding a place to
answer the call of nature is a problem. America, where if you don't have
money, it's a crime to piss anywhere but in your pants.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
That sounds more like Bern or Paris (where their is a lack of free public
restrooms) rather than the USA. What am I missing?

~~~
mercantile
I think you're missing that most of the homeless presence is in specific
areas, like downtown, where there are not many free restrooms.

Private businesses see a lot of abuse of their restrooms — from people using
them and not paying for anything, but also because they make good places to do
drugs, and it's common for homeless to overstay their welcome and/or damage
the facilities. As a result, many businesses put locks on them and require
that paying customers ask for a code.

There are a few publicly provided restrooms, but they tend to be few, far
between, and in pretty sorry disrepair. In SF for example, you can find
restrooms in parks and libraries, but they're often a mess. There are some
single use restrooms on the street that were designed to provide autonomous
self-cleaning public facilities, but because of abuse, nowadays they're mostly
either out-of-order or have a full-time worker to babysit them (also, there's
not many of them, and there throughput is very low).

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Seattle has free public restrooms, even public with a P, at the market for
example (though no stall doors because drugs, which is really weird).

------
superfamicom
I work in downtown Seattle and the people I see affected by the aggressive
homeless folks are those who don't know who they are- people visiting or new
to downtown. I know which homeless folks are dangerous from experience and
which ones are just panhandling. I've personally been spit at, spit on,
attacked with a 2x2x18 piece of wood, and had a brick thrown at me (with
surprising force), charged at, sexually assaulted (physically), the list goes
on.

I've observed the end result of panhandling in various situations: there are
the "my family needs help" folks who beg with kids in strollers and at the end
of the day get back into their cars in the Target parking lot; there are the
folks crying on the street begging for any money to get food, but don't want
food directly even if you've already bought it for them with no strings
attached; there are also the rare case of someone who was just mugged now
trying to get on the bus.

The end result is any compassion I had has been slowly whittled away. Actively
avoiding human shit or fresh vomit every morning on the sidewalks and keeping
an eye out for needles everywhere (watch where you sit on the bus) really just
leaves you tired and unsympathetic.

Pro Tips: avoid 3rd & Pine / Pike, avoid all of 2nd Ave. in general; avoid
parks and downtown after dark; do not touch the needles unless you have to
(bus seats); do not go into tall grassy or ground obscured areas as there may
be needles; avoid the park beaches as they are toilets for the homeless early
in the morning (4-6am).

~~~
hairui
Huh, I also work in downtown Seattle but have never experienced any of this. I
very rarely see shit/vomit, have never seen a needle on a bus, have never been
spit at or attacked.

~~~
nevir
Wanted to echo this.

I've worked in downtown Seattle for the last 10 years, and frequently use the
bus system. (caveat: I'm a white male, so generally in less danger, and may be
more oblivious):

* I've seen a few brawls (~5) in all that time; generally (all?) swiftly broken up by police

* Haven't experienced weapons (or items used as them), whatsoever

* I've seen (a handful of) needles in that time, but never on busses

* Lots of panhandling, people yelling things, etc.

* 2nd/3rd around Pike/Pike is _definitely_ sketchy, and will make you feel uncomfortable walking around there; but it's also where I work atm: so I frequently am in that area, and haven't encountered much.

------
nixgeek
Several of our offices are around the 3rd and Pike area downtown and it’s
pretty common to overhear colleagues saying they feel unsafe walking on
sideways around the office.

There is rampant and open usage of hard drugs, lots of people hawking used bus
tickets or items stolen from Ross Dress for Less or Target, at least a couple
instances a day of walkers being interrupted by visibly agitated homeless
either shouting nonsense or aggressively begging.

Once a month or so there’s an arrest due to a stabbing or shooting within 1-2
blocks of this area.

Whatever they’re doing in policy terms at the moment isn’t working.

~~~
CryptoPunk
That's the dirty little secret about the compassion-first, anti-law-and-order
homeless strategy: it makes residents of neighbourhoods where the homeless
services are provided feel unsafe, especially women, and especially at night.

------
ajna91
It's one thing to show compassion and not be overly punitive on those
suffering from mental illness or addiction.

It's another thing to throw up your hands and let unstable people cause chaos
in your streets. That's not good for them or you.

~~~
codr7
We're getting the worst of both worlds by blaming mentally ill, poor or
otherwise unwanted citizens for any problems caused while doing nothing to
improve the situation.

It's the oldest ruling-class distraction in the book, blame the crazy person.
But it misses the point, which is figuring out what's pushing people over the
edge and building a society that takes better care of everyone.

------
djohnston
In an interview at the time, Holmes said, "What we're really talking about is
to say, 'Just put 'em in jail. And at least that offender will be out of sight
and out of mind for a defined period of time. Not receiving treatment, but at
least out of the public view.'" I'm not sure whether he's criticizing this
thought or not, but if he IS, why? Having these people out of the public is
obviously better than having them attempt to throw people off bridges or
scream incoherent nonsense at random bystanders, regardless of whether they
receive treatment.

~~~
Analemma_
I think the point he's trying to get across is this:

First we had institutions for the mentally ill. Then we closed them all down,
with the promise that they'd be replaced by community mental health care.

But since that care never showed up, all those people just starting going to
jail instead. This is no better than the institutions, but they were "out of
sight, out of mind", so no one cared.

What Holmes is saying is, since we're not going to put these people in jail
anymore, we're now _forced_ to really deal with the problem, instead of just
shuffling them somewhere so we can pretend they don't exist. Either we get
real mental health care, or they stay on the streets screaming at people. The
choice is yours!

~~~
bobthepanda
Is this an _actual_ choice one gets to make, though?

Most mental health programs were funded (and then defunded) at the federal
level with some state money. The prosecutor in question is local. And the
problem is that even if the locality were to somehow raise all that money to
launch comprehensive mental healthcare on its own, it would basically be a
clarion call across the land for all the other cities to buy a one-way bus
ticket for _their_ homeless there, because now that one place has solved it
why do they have to?

Busing the homeless out to other places is a common occurrence:
[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-
interactive/2017/dec/...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-
interactive/2017/dec/20/bussed-out-america-moves-homeless-people-country-
study)

------
cneurotic
I don't think the issue is so much that cities are too lenient on these
people. It's more that the resources available to them are both inappropriate
and inadequate.

My wife works at in-patient psych unit in my town.

Granted, we experience nothing near the scale of problems in cities like
Seattle. But even here, our city can't cope with the sheer number of folks
with these mental health / substance abuse problems.

Many of my wife's patients are dangerous to themselves or to other people.
They can only stay on an in-patient unit for so long. After that, the
stopwatch starts ticking. How long until the next violent offense?

If there were more institutions for these people, somewhere between Hospital
and Jail, at least the stopwatch would STOP more often.

~~~
jadell
"Somewhere between Hospital and Jail" was supposed to exist. When mental
institutions were essentially dismantled in the 70s and 80s, the promise was
to move towards a more community-oriented system of specialized housing,
counseling, and in-and-out-of-home mental care.

To the surprise of no one who knew better, funding for those initiatives was
never put to those uses, and instead was funneled into law enforcement
activities. When we treat mental health and drug addiction as criminal matters
instead of public health matters, we get the sorts of outcomes we are seeing
today.

~~~
dmix
Is there evidence that money wasn't put into "specialized housing, counselling
and in and out home mental care"?

I'm sure a disproportionate amount went into law enforcement and arresting
drug dealers instead of helping anyone. I'm just curious if there's data to
back that up.

The resources are likely there already, just waiting to be redirected. I
highly doubt the end of the war on drugs would significantly increase the
supply than what it already is.

------
turtlecloud
What the homeless activists don’t get is that 95% of most people who complain
about “homeless” are talking about the visible homeless aka the crazy ones
with mental/drug problems.

When these activists start shaming you about not caring about the “hidden
homeless” it is actually turning more people to be even more apathetic.

My conspiracy theory is that the homeless activists secretly need (and
promote!) the visible homeless in order to push their agenda for more housing
for the “hidden homeless”. Since if the visible homeless are gone, then 95% of
most people would be super apathetic to the “hidden homeless” cuz out of sight
and out of mind.

~~~
mulmen
I'm with you on the first two paragraphs. I lost the plot in the third
paragraph. What is the benefit to these homeless activists in perpetuating
homelessness?

~~~
philwelch
The "visible homeless" generate attention and motivation to address
homelessness. The "invisible homeless" are, well, invisible and so it's hard
to motivate people to give money/time/votes to addressing their problems. The
"visible homeless" are a bit of a nuisance so there's a vested interest in
addressing homelessness if you think doing so will stop that kind of thing.

------
Animats
The US used to have big mental hospitals for the mentally defective. Those
were phased out in the Reagan era.[1][2] They didn't cure many people, but
they fed and clothed them, and warehoused them out of sight, so everyone else
could get on with life.

[1] [https://www.npr.org/2017/11/30/567477160/how-the-loss-of-
u-s...](https://www.npr.org/2017/11/30/567477160/how-the-loss-of-u-s-
psychiatric-hospitals-led-to-a-mental-health-crisis)

[2]
[https://www.thebalance.com/deinstitutionalization-3306067](https://www.thebalance.com/deinstitutionalization-3306067)

------
fiblye
This is a question that will likely sound incredibly offensive, but only
because I don’t know of a polite way to say it. But: What’s wrong with the
mentally ill in America specifically?

It seems like you can’t walk down a single city block in the US without seeing
someone screaming at something that’s not there, someone naked and wrapped in
blankets, someone saying the earth is about to be destroyed by
aliens/god/satan/whatever, someone screaming that they’re going to kill you
(and looking quite serious about it), someone pissing on a wall without
concern, etc.

I’ve seen this _nowhere else_ in the world. I’ve seen homeless who are clearly
mentally disturbed to some extent, but they’re usually silently searching for
a meal or something without harassing or terrorizing anyone.

I know the go to excuse is mental health care in America sucks, but that can’t
be the entirety of the problem. I’ve been to some incredibly poor places where
basic health care isn’t even an option for most people, yet I still never
worried about walking down city streets like I do in America.

What makes American cities so particularly bad and absolutely full of people
who seem to be bad movie caricatures of mentally ill homeless people?

Edit: I am American and lived there most of my life, so it’s nothing to do
with simply visiting a bad place. It’s something I saw everywhere

~~~
quirmian
Lack of strong family ties. People blame lack of public facilities and health
care, but at the root of it all, it’s the missing safety net that family
provides. This is the number one difference between some of those incredibly
poor places and America.

~~~
ljm
Sorry, no The issue is the people who run the country you were born in are
making all of the decisions.

If you're homeless because you came out of prison, you will have had your
right to vote deprived of you.

Family has nothing to do with it.

~~~
DoreenMichele
We live in a country where the government is separating children from parents
at the border for the "crime" of seeking asylum.

The government has a lot of capacity to undermine and outright destroy strong
family ties. Or to support and nurture them with policies like maternity
leave, as most of the world does.

The US is the only wealthy developed nation without a good maternity leave
policy.

Family has a lot to do with it. You can't neatly and cleanly separate other
social stuff from family. It all interacts.

You grow up in a particular kind of family/social fabric, so you think that
matters. You take those values with you to your government job or position as
an elected official and perpetuate those values, for good or for ill.

------
aaronbrethorst
_Public frustration with the "visible homeless" found its voice in a recent
hourlong special called "Seattle is Dying," by ABC affiliate KOMO-TV._

This fails to mention that KOMO is owned by Sinclair Broadcasting, which has
been building a sort of 'Fox News of broadcast TV' across the United States.
Here's one fun story about them from April 2018:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16734739](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16734739)

~~~
Sebguer
They are far worse than Fox news, because at least you know what you're
getting with Fox. Sinclair uses local branding and trusted voices to sell
propaganda.

~~~
DubiousPusher
Forget Sinclair. This is NPR and they put a line like that in their piece
which makes it sound as if the public is speaking with a majority or unanimous
voice on this.

And this line is classic crime reporter editorializing.

> The county attorney is no longer charging people for possession of small
> amounts of drugs — even heroin and meth

Which totally 'begs the question' that somehow carrying these drugs is
uniquely bad. Why NPR? Why is heroin uniquely worth calling out in your
reporting. Your Victorian values letting the gin drinkers get to you? Too bad
they can't afford champagne.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
If there are laws against possession and they are deciding not to prosecute,
then that is definitely noteworthy, whether you agree with their decision or
not.

~~~
DubiousPusher
Absolutely. But they are choosing not to prosecute many drug possession
charges.

Singling out those two without any statistical explanation of why those drugs
are more problematic than any others is shock journalism trash.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
I’m not sure why you would expect NPR to editorialize here, they can just
state the fact and move on with their story, this is perfectly respectable.

------
TomMckenny
Because homelessness aggravates a controllable condition into an uncontrolled
one. Treatment should be provided but it's not going to do much good if the
patient is just going to live on the street.

You'll find the number of homeless with mental health problems corresponds
with the total number of homeless which corresponds directly with housing
prices. So until there is a major effort to drive those prices down, this
problem will worsen, as it has for a generation now.

And of course Sinclair broadcasting is pushing to lock up the poor rather than
do that.

------
umeshunni
Meanwhile, in my neighborhood in San Francisco, my neighbors are suing the
city to prevent the construction of a homeless shelter.

[https://sf.curbed.com/2019/7/11/20689583/homeless-sf-suit-
na...](https://sf.curbed.com/2019/7/11/20689583/homeless-sf-suit-navigation-
center-embarcadero-shelter-lawsuit)

The noise around this in HOA meetings, local body meetings, NextDoor etc has
been incredible with anyone trying to propose that a homeless shelter might be
a good option vociferously shouted down, accused of "not being a Bay Area
native" and a "techie".

The only other cause that I've seen my neighbors so fiercely oppose is new
housing construction.

~~~
DoreenMichele
_The only other cause that I 've seen my neighbors so fiercely oppose is new
housing construction._

This is the bigger problem. The lack of housing supply is a primary root cause
of homelessness.

~~~
umeshunni
> This is the bigger problem. The lack of housing supply is a primary root
> cause of homelessness.

It could be, but in most west coast cities, it is not. Mental health issues
and addiction are the primary causes of homelessness. I hardly think the guy
waving a metal pipe around while schizophrenic is homeless because he missed a
few payments on his $3200/mo rent.

~~~
DoreenMichele
No, he's homeless in part because he can't afford $3200/mo rent to begin with.

For every 100 families living in poverty on the West Coast, there are no more
than 30 affordable homes

[https://www.geekwire.com/2018/every-100-families-living-
pove...](https://www.geekwire.com/2018/every-100-families-living-poverty-west-
coast-no-30-affordable-homes/)

The Clear Connection Between Housing Costs and Homelessness

[https://streetlifesolutions.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-
clear-c...](https://streetlifesolutions.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-clear-
connection-between-housing.html)

California Statistics on Homelessness and Housing

[https://streetlifesolutions.blogspot.com/2018/05/california-...](https://streetlifesolutions.blogspot.com/2018/05/california-
statistics-on-homelessness.html)

~~~
umeshunni
To clarify, I think that: 1\. There is a housing crisis - both availability
and affordability 2\. Lack of housing caused the housing crisis 3\. Lack of
housing is caused by NIMBYs preventing new housing and California's Prop 13
which reduces the incentives for cities to build new housing. 4\. Some people
are homeless because they cannot afford housing.

However, Mental health issues are the reason for violent, mentally ill people
being on the streets. Given their issues with addiction and illness, they
would not be able to hold a job or afford even $500/mo rent.

The links you pointed to aren't convincing. They are links to a blog that
links to sources such as Fox News and Business Insider.

~~~
DoreenMichele
The first one is an article. The other two are links to a blog of mine. I
gathered that info together.

Among other things, I've had a college class on Homelessness and Public
Policy.

------
jackyinger
I live in Seattle right across the street from a mental health institution.
The folks that gather around it are really beyond their wits end.

While I think the idea that Seattle is dying is melodramatic bs, it is quite
the nuisance to have these folks hanging around. Furthermore, the inadequate
public sanitation in Capitol Hill compounds the problem into one of public
health.

I think that the problem visible in the homeless population is the result of
systematic marginalization. The USA has a real fuck-you attitude towards those
who aren’t up-and-comers, so the down and out just get ground down further.
It’s a tough problem to address, so do your part and try not to recoil in
dehumanizing horror when you see these folks.

------
onetimemanytime
Another POV is that whatever your problem is, I have a right to be unmolested
in the street /home. So it's a bit more complicated.

~~~
jschwartzi
Agreed. And I don't think anyone is saying you don't have that right. Rather
we're hoping you can forgive the molestor as someone who is ill and needs
treatment to get better. The act is not the sum of the person. I wouldn't
fault you for not being able to do this though.

We are making a choice to punish people for their illnesses. And in a humane
culture we would look at those less fortunate and try to help them. This was a
central tenet of Progressivisim, which as an ideal has presided over some of
the finest periods of our nation's history, and since it has fallen out of
favor so has the US.

Currently what we're doing is throwing people in jail who are mentally ill,
treating them like criminals, and not treating the mental illness. Then we
release them onto the streets, where they promptly take up the same habits
that got them put into jail in the first place.

It's been several generations since we closed up all the inpatient facilities,
and two generations since Reagan basically eliminated all federal funding for
mental health care. The upshot is we have a bunch of crazy people living among
us who don't realize that they're mentally ill, and who cannot be coerced into
treatment because there are no treatment programs that have room for them. So
they end up in jail or on the street.

I think it's time for us to try something different. Clearly jailing the
mentally ill is not working.

~~~
pteredactyl
You say the rights of that person molesting people on the streets is greater
than that of the citizen trying to get to work (or an 8 year old en route to
school). That's unacceptable to me.

So while I agree with you on mental institution funding and it being a solid
(Edit: part of the) solution. Compassion still has the inmates running the
asylum (streets).

------
ralmidani
"Some accuse a reform-oriented local criminal justice system of becoming too
tolerant."

As an American, I find our emphasis on inflicting maximum pain rather than
reform very disturbing. Among "civilized" nations, our criminal justice system
is one of the most unforgiving and inhumane.

~~~
ajhurliman
Correct. Ignoring the problem and pretending that these folks are living
meaningful, empowered lives is a sham. They're obviously miserable and need
some help.

------
mr_tristan
I'm wondering if starting with better categorization of "homeless" would be
important, I'm thinking of something like ETHOS
([https://www.feantsa.org/download/en-16822651433655843804.pdf](https://www.feantsa.org/download/en-16822651433655843804.pdf))

Ideally, you figure out how mental illness plays into the different
categories, and you may be able to understand effective prevention.

My sense is that this goes beyond mere "we need some mental health
facilities", because preventing someone in a less secure housing situation
from becoming totally roofless may end up being significantly cheaper, i.e.,
not require specialist mental care and hospitalization, but just a subsidized
housing and someone stopping by to make sure the person hasn't regressed.

Sadly, it appears nobody with real resources in the US wants to invest in
understanding homelessness, so we just lump it all together and try to find
ways to let the police deal with it.

~~~
mr_tristan
Interesting, that the HUD data (Point-in-Time count), indicates declines
across the board over the last decade for homelessness, yet, most journalism
indicates the exact opposite:

[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-
canada-45442596](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45442596)

And, yet, for Portland (mentioned in the BBC article), the data suggests that
the "problem people", the chronically homeless, unsheltered population went up
by ... 42 (.006% of the overall population):
[https://static1.squarespace.com/static/566631e8c21b864679fff...](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/566631e8c21b864679fff4de/t/59ee2e7a5ffd207c6e7b41a0/1508781707710/PSU+2017+Point-
In-Time_FINAL_%28Interactive%29+%281%29+%281%29.pdf)

I'd admit my _impressions_ (again, not significant suggestions, I was asking
questions) have been biased by journalism, and, journalists probably find the
HUD data inconvenient for telling their stories.

But, I do not appear to be alone, and there are very powerful people pushing
the negative narrative. Last year the PPA (Portland police union) also
referred to the city as a "cesspool", which sure seems to fit with the overall
theme of "homelessness getting worse":
[https://www.facebook.com/PortlandPoliceAssociation/photos/a....](https://www.facebook.com/PortlandPoliceAssociation/photos/a.386709091352814.95949.306696819354042/2058045217552518/?type=3&theater)

I'd also point out that my suspicions and questions were also on the minds of
other national organizations: [https://endhomelessness.org/ending-
homelessness/solutions/](https://endhomelessness.org/ending-
homelessness/solutions/)

We appear to have a massive disconnect in the narrative presented by
journalists, politicians, and at least the HUD.

------
aschearer
Just want to say as a Seattlite that the city I experience is not a dangerous
hell hole at all. I've lived in Capitol Hill for a decade. I've worked on the
hill and in SODO. I regularly go to Pioneer Square, Rainier Valley, downtown,
the ID, not to mention Ballard, Fremont, and so on. Homelessness is a serious
problem in the city, and something I encounter every day, but I have never
been attacked, threatened, etc. I'm sure it happens, but I think the narrative
is getting unbalanced. I've stayed in Seattle for so long because it is truly
an amazing place to live!

Setting all that aside, because the issue is so pressing and the risk at
losing empathy so great I volunteer with a local homeless shelter. I encourage
everyone who feels this issue is important to find some time to contribute to
the solution. You can help make a difference, interact with homeless people as
humans not "others", and regain a little agency in the world.

~~~
fremonter123
Also in Seattle, complete opposite experience. Live in Fremont near the canal.
I have been swung and lunged at and had someone who was severely mentally ill
tear apart my yard and try and break the windows in the house with the patio
furniture while home. Absolutely terrifying and had to clean blood off of the
doors. On the regular screaming could be heard in the neighborhood in the
distance somewhere.

Once the encampments in the area were cleared everything stopped. Turned me
into a nimby right quick. Tax me sufficiently to provide adequate services and
get them the hell out of my neighborhood.

------
garbre
This says a lot about a certain space within our current politics...

    
    
      Homelessness is a product of mental illness and shouldn't be criminalized... but let's not actually bother to treat these peoples' mental illness, either
    

I don't know if this is just wishful thinking or a product of shortsightedness
and unthinking hostility towards "criminalization" and all it entails, but
yes, this is where we end up.

To be clear, mental illness _shouldn 't_ be criminalized, but a lot of these
people need either intense, voluntary support or in some cases to just be
committed for their own good and the safety of others, especially when their
mental illness is making them violent.

------
Causality1
If people decide the homeless are likely to be dangerous their propensity to
help them, via money or food or a place to stay or a ride somewhere will
plummet to near-zero. Letting assault-prone people walk free because they're
mentally ill is a threat to both the normal citizenry and the well-being of
the homeless at large. Not to mention the fact that dangerous homeless are
much more likely to injure or kill another homeless or otherwise-vulnerable
person.

------
H8crilA
The amount of insane people on the streets is a big reason why I wouldn't want
to move to the United States from Europe. I lived in America for 3 months and
experienced more problems than in the 25 years before.

I truly don't get it why there's so many crazies in United States as opposed
to pretty much any other country. Does anybody know? Seems like figuring out
where does the discrepancy come from should be the first step before helping
them.

~~~
travbrack
If this site* is correct, the US only has only about 1% more people with
mental health issues than western Europe. I'd guess it's more visible in the
US because we have a much weaker social safety net.

[https://ourworldindata.org/mental-health#prevalence-of-
menta...](https://ourworldindata.org/mental-health#prevalence-of-mental-
health-and-substance-use-disorders)

------
dmode
One thing that really bothers me about America are the folks who are clearly
suffering from severe mental health and substance abuse, yet are roaming the
streets unable to take care of themselves. I can't recall another developed or
even underdeveloped country (including where I grew up) on this being the
norm. Is there research on why this is a uniquely American problem ? Is this
due a stronger adherence towards civil liberties here ?

~~~
webgoat
There's plenty of mentally ill people roaming the streets in Canada as well.
I'd guess it's a lack of institutions to care for these people and also a lack
of care on part of our municipal governments to do anything about it.

------
jelliclesfarm
There are mentally ill in every country. Is it statistically higher in
America? Is it a heritable condition or is it’s a brain chemical imbalance
caused by environmental factors?

Surely, there are mentally ill people all over the world, but they don’t
congregate in cities like this and roam around uncared for..not by family..not
by society..not by anyone. The sheer numbers...It’s unfathomable.

------
TbobbyZ
My father is homeless. No matter how much money you throw at him, he will
always be homeless. He's an incompetent 54 year old. He needs to be constantly
monitored so he doesn't drink or do drugs.

The only real solution to this level of homelessness is you need to round them
up and essentially put them all in a glorified daycare or rehabilitation
centers. Kind of like a lesser prison.

------
agentofoblivion
I also live in Seattle. I have no idea how to solve the problem, but I
definitely don't think letting dangerous people roam the streets, committing
acts of violence without consequence, is the answer.

When you have a person that's consistently assaulting random people, that
person needs to be forcibly removed from the environment as a matter of public
good, regardless of the causal reason for their actions.

It's a real shame they were born with a bad brain that makes them incapable of
not being a violent menace to society, and that no cost-effective and humane
solutions seem to be on the table. But if I have to make a short-term decision
on who's rights to sacrifice first: the ill violence committer or the innocent
victim, I choose the former 10 times out of 10.

~~~
DoreenMichele
I don't disagree with the main thrust of your point, but I think this is an
incorrect and very problematic framing:

 _It 's a real shame they were born with a bad brain that makes them incapable
of not being a violent menace to society_

People take many years to grow into adulthood. Studies show that every dollar
invested in doing right by our children saves multiple dollars down the road
on prison costs and the like.

America has a terrible track record for how it treats its children, especially
for a wealthy, developed country. If we want to escape our current Prison-
Industrial Complex with a side of violent and insane rampant homelessness, we
would do well to start by developing more family-friendly policies in this
country.

~~~
rmah
Nothing that agentofoblivion wrote hinted at him not supporting "doing right
by our children". And nothing you wrote touches on what you think should be
done after the damage has been done.

Prevention is all to the good and should, of course, be pursued. But
prevention of future problems does not solve the problem that exists NOW.

~~~
DoreenMichele
Suggesting people are simply born that way implicitly suggests that there is
nothing whatsoever to do about it. "You lost in the genetic lottery. Sucks to
be you."

I'm saying it's vastly more complicated than that and it's a serious problem
to frame the problem that way because it leads to a mentality of "Just lock
them up or ship them out for the good of other people." This tends to deepen
the problem.

There are things that help. I know a lot about such things. I sometimes try to
blog about such.

~~~
50656E6973
Agreed, claiming mental illness is due to being born with a "bad brain" is
dangerous pseudoscience. Psychiatry/psychology has zero proof that mental
illness is due to "bad brains" or any such objective biological cause

~~~
asfarley
Sounds like a failure of pschiatry. I don't accept the conclusion that faulty
brains are 'unlikely to be the root-cause'.

This is like a systems engineer stating 'this issue is definitely not
hardware-related'. Maybe you have zero proof that it's hardware-related; maybe
you need to work harder at debugging.

~~~
DoreenMichele
In this case, the hardware gets altered over time due to throughputs in the
energy generating system, so isolating system failures such than you can
conclusively state "it's a defect in the hardware that originated in the
design and manufacture" is quite tricky, especially given the long life and
myriad use cases of the hardware in question.

------
blondie9x
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpAi70WWBlw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpAi70WWBlw)

------
pteredactyl
The law is blind. The more we bend this the more our society breaks.
Especially in the eyes of our children.

Edit:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Justice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Justice)

~~~
rolltiide
Police officers have wide discretion, district attorneys have wide discretion,
prosecutors have wide discretion, juries have wide discretion, judges have
wide discretion. The laws they operate on and around can be dumb. We don't
have a way for children to understand that.

A holistic approach is to address all of these simultaneously.

~~~
pteredactyl
Agreed. And you prove my point in a way. Our litigious (Edit: and racially
preferential) culture is part of the issue.

A holistic approach is a principled one. Clear laws are principled.

For example, noise ordinances in SF say there's a violation if event or action
is 10 decibels greater than the ambient.

Or, if you push someone, harass a child en route to school, shoot up on the
street, defecate on the street, etc. These are clear violations.

~~~
pteredactyl
The real question is, what do we do with violators? Especially those lost in
the head.

Adequate mental health institutions seems an appropriate start. But it also
needs to be coordinated regionally. San Francisco and LA can not bear the
burden of the western United States.

