Submitted by Ruze42 t3_10pg8k8 in washingtondc
Comments
J-Team07 t1_j6l3247 wrote
State run mental Institutions where shut down because modern pharmaceuticals had the potential to allow for community based care and maintenance. No one seemed to factor in that there would be a significant portion of the mentally ill who would not take their medication and that population would be exacerbated by modern drugs that were developed.
Agirlisarya01 t1_j6laajc wrote
No one also seemed to factor in that community based care would require funding and logistical support. That somehow never materialized. They just cut the institutionalized loose with no resources and no support.
resdivinae t1_j6ml3p9 wrote
No, people absolutely factored this in. Hence the MHSA of 1980. Reagan, however, never did anything with it.
J-Team07 t1_j6mngn5 wrote
I bet it costs less to put someone in a mental hospital than jail.
monagw t1_j6n5e0q wrote
The problem was that communities didn't want these mental health facilities. Blaming Reagan for the current homeless crisis is so silly.
resdivinae t1_j6n647r wrote
That was part of the problem, yes. I don't pin the homeless crisis entirely on Reagan, although I think his repealing most of the MHSA in '81 was a contributing factor.
monagw t1_j6n8drm wrote
How is this a contributing factor of any consequence for homelessness in 2023? Democratic presidents, governors and mayors could easily have restored funding to the local mental health centers defunded by the repeal of the MHSA. Why didn't they? Could be that communities resisted these centers?
resdivinae t1_j6ndl0u wrote
Apart for the humane concerns, another major impetus behind deinstitutionalization was the cost of running asylums and facilities. The MHSA was intended to supplement state provisions with federal grants to support and maintain community mental health facilities. When those federal grants fell through, many states just didn't bother with expanding mental health facilities on their own provisions. I'm sure it's the case that some communities resisted these facilities, but that is not always an impediment. DC, for example, recently built and refurbished homeless shelters in every city ward.
[deleted] t1_j6liij9 wrote
[removed]
strangechicken t1_j6kufm7 wrote
Well, the actions to take to stop this level of homelessness are not palpable to the average voter it would seem. Either dont want to spend the tax funds to institutionalize them (jail or hospital) or still want the status quo of giving them used camping equipment to take up parks and sidewalks even more so.
Deanocracy t1_j6l04xd wrote
Institutionalization would be supported on its face I think as a humane alternative.
Its not a fiscal issue. It would be a justice issue.
resdivinae t1_j6mrgoy wrote
Decades ago, deinstitutionalization was the humane alternative. Now we seem to be circling back. I think today institutionalization can be done humanely, but we need the political will and funding to start and sustain it.
Deanocracy t1_j6mzmm0 wrote
Yeah… its wrongly tied to Reagan when in reality it was a large progressive movement and a push to medications as the new wonder drug that would fix it.
“The belief then was widespread that the same scientific researchers who had conjured up antibiotics and vaccines during the outburst of medical discovery in the 50's and 60's had also developed penicillins to cure psychoses and thus revolutionize the treatment of the mentally ill.”
https://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/30/science/how-release-of-mental-patients-began.html
monagw t1_j6n4qob wrote
Thank you for sharing this article.
Blue_5ive t1_j6ox3mm wrote
The issue I have with it is who decides who should be institutionalized? How would safeguards work so that institutions don’t just turn into jail dlc?
under_psychoanalyzer t1_j6l12ce wrote
It's got nothing to do with what "average voter" wants. You can't medically institutionalize anyone in this country anymore without their own or some sort of familial consent. You have to actively threatening to hurt yourself or someone else. But having enough fentanyl to kill 3 horses on your person doesn't count. That's a result of case law precedent. So that leaves only criminal charges, but understandably we don't want to lock up the users into a criminal system for being addicts. Good luck ever creating a bill in any state to undo that by giving the government more power to lock people away in mental institutions.
And that's making the false assumption people who are homeless are all drug addicts and need to be institutionalized. Housing needs to be increased but that's a systemic economic issue that would require a consistent domestic policy for more than a few years at a time, but half the country can't decide on if they want free ice cream or a kick in the nuts.
Macrophage87 t1_j6neorn wrote
It's interesting to note that the homeless population in DC is at it's lowest point in several years, mostly due to a decrease in homeless families. According to the Community Partnership for the Prevention of Homelessness, there are only 690 people living on the street in a given night (with more in emergency shelters). That's roughly the amount of people who could fit into a single apartment building. For all the amount of time, money, and energy devoted to this issue, the problem doesn't appear that insurmountable.
Macrophage87 t1_j6ngpvz wrote
Is it? The number of unsheltered people in DC is apparently 690 people according to the Community Partnership for the Prevention of Homelessness. That's an apartment building's worth of people. Yes some of these people need additional support, such as Domestic Violence, addiction, mental health, job training, etc. but finding places for people to live is a problem with policy, not possibility.
fratbruhh t1_j6kjkem wrote
I have nothing to add to this discussion.
slobis t1_j6kjtaq wrote
Me either
endlessly_apollo t1_j6kktip wrote
Me too
twenty-six-sixty-six t1_j6llunt wrote
me neither
MyKidsArentOnReddit t1_j6ld8qf wrote
Remind me - that's the one across the street from the Victim of Communism Museum, right?
#Irony
OrtizDupri t1_j6lmoi9 wrote
DC sure loves its right wing museums lol
[deleted] t1_j6m1wty wrote
[removed]
Macrophage87 t1_j6ndd5k wrote
Unhoused people don't suddenly not become unhoused after we clear out the encampments. Does removing people from one spot actually help anything? You just get tents setup elsewhere.
IASIP_Official t1_j6p28q5 wrote
*homeless
Softening language serves no purpose other than making yourself feel better
debyrne t1_j6p54xt wrote
Dog.
I’m not trying to argue but I think it’s funny because you can definitely make a home that’s not in the house but yeah so like there’s people out there that make their home a tent, so yeah, they may not be homeless in that sense but they are definitely houseless
IASIP_Official t1_j6p6veh wrote
Homeless (adj) - without a home, and therefore typically living on the streets.
By its very definition this is correct. Calling them unhoused is nothing more than trying to reshape language to make people feel better, it serves zero purpose to help anyone.
Macrophage87 t1_j6p3lsa wrote
It's not softening. A home also implies a sense of community, which they may or may not have. Unhoused focuses on the fact that they need housing.
IASIP_Official t1_j6p4crq wrote
Lol sure it does
Let's ask the homeless guy how much calling him unhoused has helped his situation. It's the same bullshit as "thoughts and prayers"
debyrne t1_j6p5azb wrote
About respecting people my guy
It’s not a difficult concept. You should try it sometime.
IASIP_Official t1_j6p72kc wrote
Lmao disrespectful I use the properly defined terminology for their situation? Tell yourself whatever you'd like
9throwaway2 t1_j6or5hq wrote
weirdly, not so sure. it is a bit like how getting rid of highways doesn't mean that traffic reappears elsewhere.
dc has unclaimed beds in shelters and vouchers. the downside is those come with requirements to enter rehab, curfews, and not commit crimes. sometimes people need a bit of a nudge in the right way.
idkyikeepmakingnew1s t1_j6ky4cw wrote
Does anyone know if the McKenna’s Wagon will continue operating in the area?
Duckies 🦆 🫡
[deleted] t1_j6oq1sw wrote
[removed]
Ace1o1fun t1_j6l9c8d wrote
The thing is these homeless people don't own the land they're camping on taxpayers do and they're destroying it. You know there used to be loitering and vacancy laws it's time to start enforcing them. homelessness is a big problem but I have to really ask where are the 2 million illegal immigrants (That have just recently been bused all over the country) being housed right now and who's paying for that when we have Americans on the street.
WuPacalypse t1_j6lgx3t wrote
There are actually a ton of housing vouchers available in DC. I have not spoken with homeless folks and am not exactly sure why some prefer living in a tent over getting a housing voucher. Maybe it’s an independence thing.
mak_and_cheese t1_j6m3zjv wrote
Lots of rules to obey if you take housing vouchers. I imagine that if we offered drug rehab and job training along with the voucher it could be more successful.
Formergr t1_j6n9xpo wrote
> I imagine that if we offered drug rehab and job training along with the voucher it could be more successful.
DC does.
mak_and_cheese t1_j6nfwi1 wrote
Oh wow. I thought it was just methadone and job placement - I didn’t realize it was the full mental health therapy and training. That’s awesome. Thank you for the knowledge.
[deleted] t1_j6ma3ac wrote
[removed]
GuerillaCupid t1_j6lriii wrote
Because in the “housing” those vouchers provide, the people are treated like prisoners and can be expelled onto the street for a minor infraction of policy. Tent life is infinitely more stable and thus safer for a long term houseless person. Again, this is just from talking to some tent residents in the neighborhood near me, but i think it’s very important to note that these people aren’t being unreasonable by wanting stable housing. We need a better solution
poet-rae-monet t1_j6mk7c5 wrote
This is correct. They are treated like children with curfews, bed, and room checks. Many places (shelters) are first come, first served, so while you may have somewhere to sleep tonight, you may not be able to sleep there tomorrow. The housing also mixes many different people together who may steal your belongings or assault you overnight. The encampments create small communities of trusted and "like" people. Moving them also removes that trust. And yes, drug rehab programs, job seeking, clothing, food, are all programs already offered by the city to address the issue.
Formergr t1_j6n9wf8 wrote
This is correct for shelters, agree, but not at all the case for vouchers.
mastakebob t1_j6mnnwu wrote
Yea, but living in tents on public parks and sidewalks isn't a legal or acceptable alternative. Forgive the crude analogy, but that's like saying "Cooking is difficult and potentially dangerous; it's much more safe and stable to just help myself to my neighbors refrigerator whenever I get hungry".
haroldhecuba88 t1_j6m8kdw wrote
Safe how? More crime, disease and drugs in these encampments. Tent life stable and safer? I don’t see that. I agree with others in that offering drug rehab and job training would go a long way. I don’t know what the rules are in regards to these vouchers but I have to believe it’s better than living in rat infested squalor with their health and life under threat. I’d take the strict rules and voucher no problem. Just offering free housing so they can do as they please will also not solve the problem. It’s takes lots of work, from both sides.
Panda_alley t1_j6n357e wrote
they seem to be conflating vouchers and shelters. not exactly sure how someone would do a bed check for a voucher recipient lol.
​
either way, i don't have any insight into shelters but have plenty of experience with addiction via family members. listening to people on here you'd think shelters are military boot camps. my guess is the rules exist not for the people who struggle to follow them, but for everyone else trying to maintain sobriety and stability. like yeah, no shit you can't be high and stay in a shelter, or wander in at 3am, or bang your girlfriend, and so on. people following the rules are trying to get their shit together and youre being an asshole. that said, as mentioned i don't have experience with them, so i could be totally off.
haroldhecuba88 t1_j6nc1py wrote
100%. Your basic premise is accurate regardless of rules. People are trying to get it together, maybe even some are families. Clean requires clean. Life is hard enough for some people, they don't need disfunction or toxicity around when they are trying so hard to get it together.
[deleted] t1_j6m1t76 wrote
[removed]
mrbridgeburner t1_j6kpj7i wrote
It's an impossible situation.