4 ms·

1. If someone asked for the reason I don't know it. 1.5. Full disclosure, "shelter" was probably the wrong word because I don't think anyone was sleeping at th

1. If someone asked for the reason I don't know it. 1.5. Full disclosure, "shelter" was probably the wrong word because I don't think anyone was sleeping at the church. There were definitely some people eating multiple meals a day there, though. So I don't know if you would call that temporary housing. That makes it even wierder (to me) that they would refuse permanent housing. 2. "Punished" might not quite be the right word here. I remember there was a guy - I think his name was Don - who was very mentally ill and very scary. Well over 6 feet tall and looking absolutely wild, he would roam the streets shouting incoherently at people, usually women. He interacted with one of my friends at the shelter so often they were on a first name basis and several times he would just approach our group screaming at him. He had little sense of his surroundings and would often wander right into oncoming traffic, it was a miracle he live through my time at college. Whether you think scooping Don up and sticking him in a mental hospital is "saving" him or "punishing him" depends on your worldview, but I lean towards thinking that Don's situation wasn't good for him or anyone else and that someone should have done something. And give his nature, I would expect that to require force...

evanelias 5y ago
> "shelter" was probably the wrong word because I don't think anyone was sleeping at the church I assume you're referring to the former church at 3rd + Bloomfield? AFAIK it's legitimately a shelter with 50 beds. The building was still an active church until 5-10 years ago so maybe it wasn't fully a shelter before then, not sure. > he would roam the streets shouting incoherently at people, usually women Sadly there are multiple people here who fit this description! My guess would be either Nicky or Chuey, as these guys are well-known in town -- they've been doing this for over a decade. But especially since the pandemic, a few additional unhinged shouty guys have appeared. I don't know what the solution is. Clearly the local government doesn't know either, because I've personally seen them arrest one of these guys quite a few times, usually when he gets particularly riled up or violent. He's always back though, sometimes in just a few days.
- teucris 5y ago
  Feels like most people want a ethical system for guiding people like this out of the street and to a place that is safe and healthy for them and their community. This is impossible when you need to argue over who’s gonna pay for it. So instead, poor systems are put in place, forcing the police to deal with these situations using the few tools they have at hand, including arrest, sweeps, etc.
  - evanelias 5y ago
    It costs a massive amount to keep arresting and releasing these same people, on a weekly or monthly basis, year after year. Funding isn't necessarily the issue... the problem is the lack of any clear alternative. Concretely, what ethical solution do you propose in the situation of a violent schizophrenic who refuses to take their medication, or a violent meth addict who won't stay clean? These people want to remain in their local community, but their community isn't large enough to have specialized facilities for their problems. And even if such facilities were local and taxpayer-funded, these people repeatedly refuse to remain in any voluntary treatment facility anyway. So what do you do, even if you had unlimited funding?
    - teucris 5y ago
      I agree funding isn’t the issue. The issue is the constant arguing over whose fiscal responsibility it is, causing the funds to be poorly used. As for an ethical solution, I can’t say concretely in either of the cases you’ve listed because they are hypotheticals with no actual human details. Therein lies one of the biggest issues: social services do not scale easily. The only solution I’ve seen work is to get more professionals out and solving each case, one by one, according to their specific needs. This costs a fortune, but I guess we agree money isn’t a problem.

evanelias 5y ago

> "shelter" was probably the wrong word because I don't think anyone was sleeping at the church I assume you're referring to the former church at 3rd + Bloomfield? AFAIK it's legitimately a shelter with 50 beds. The building was still an active church until 5-10 years ago so maybe it wasn't fully a shelter before then, not sure. > he would roam the streets shouting incoherently at people, usually women Sadly there are multiple people here who fit this description! My guess would be either Nicky or Chuey, as these guys are well-known in town -- they've been doing this for over a decade. But especially since the pandemic, a few additional unhinged shouty guys have appeared. I don't know what the solution is. Clearly the local government doesn't know either, because I've personally seen them arrest one of these guys quite a few times, usually when he gets particularly riled up or violent. He's always back though, sometimes in just a few days.

teucris 5y ago
Feels like most people want a ethical system for guiding people like this out of the street and to a place that is safe and healthy for them and their community. This is impossible when you need to argue over who’s gonna pay for it. So instead, poor systems are put in place, forcing the police to deal with these situations using the few tools they have at hand, including arrest, sweeps, etc.
- evanelias 5y ago
  It costs a massive amount to keep arresting and releasing these same people, on a weekly or monthly basis, year after year. Funding isn't necessarily the issue... the problem is the lack of any clear alternative. Concretely, what ethical solution do you propose in the situation of a violent schizophrenic who refuses to take their medication, or a violent meth addict who won't stay clean? These people want to remain in their local community, but their community isn't large enough to have specialized facilities for their problems. And even if such facilities were local and taxpayer-funded, these people repeatedly refuse to remain in any voluntary treatment facility anyway. So what do you do, even if you had unlimited funding?
  - teucris 5y ago
    I agree funding isn’t the issue. The issue is the constant arguing over whose fiscal responsibility it is, causing the funds to be poorly used. As for an ethical solution, I can’t say concretely in either of the cases you’ve listed because they are hypotheticals with no actual human details. Therein lies one of the biggest issues: social services do not scale easily. The only solution I’ve seen work is to get more professionals out and solving each case, one by one, according to their specific needs. This costs a fortune, but I guess we agree money isn’t a problem.