Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There aren't enough beds in homeless shelters, let alone hospitals. This is a total PR stunt. And the people cheering it would scream bloody murder if a homeless shelter was built anywhere near them, or if public money was spent to build or expand a public hospital that could treat the mentally ill poor.

Perhaps. But they did just build a massive migrant center. So perhaps they will house them with the folks arriving on buses from Texas and Florida.

Most of the those people will become employed and will not be unhoused. Many office buildings throughout the boroughs are nearing the end of their leases and companies are vigorously shedding office space. Those tours could be adapted for SROs which were once prevalent in New York. It would take less re-configuring than creating individual apartments and would be a move toward regulated institutionalization.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone here is just slinging insults.

The reality is that such a program requires serious public investment to implement. As pointed out, this requires major healthcare resources out of an already strapped and understaffed system from the ground up, meaning investing not only in expanding facility beds and staff, but also even funding tuition for education programs, funding the actual education program itself as we don't have enough.

Just take the "build them homes!!" budget and actually build a facility where they can be housed and kept off the streets.

"Build them homes" poster is a dreamer. Probably someone pinning for a free apartment/home/ lottery win, etc.

No one is going to build a home for those who are so mentally ill they are sleeping on the street or anyone else because they feel tgey deserve one. You have to earn a home, it isn't free. I suppose they believe the builder is going to furnish this house, pay the maintenance, taxes and monthly bills too?

The answer is permanent institutionalization.

Thy are all dangerous from a hygiene perspective alone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not humane to leave sick people out on the street to hurt themselves and others. No rational objective person would choose that life. They need help. I think Adams made the right decision.

.

But his plan SPECIFICALLY is talking about people who are NEITHER a danger to themselves or others.

This is bizarre - living on the streets (especially high) is inherently a danger to themselves AND others.

No one said anything about drugs, that's a separate issue. But simply sleeping on the streets does not endangers anyone, tf are you talking about?

As a psychologist I am disgusted by this policy and the falsehood in many of the posts here that most homeless and mentally ill people pose a danger to others. Most homeless and mentally ill people are neither violent nor dangerous. I'm not surprised in the least that the pearl clutchers on DCUM have stigma toward the mentally ill and homeless.

As a psychologist you should also know that people suffering from mental illness are unpredictable. They aren’t violent until they are. Additionally, the mentally ill homeless population are not your average people with mental illness. Their illness is already severe enough that they are unable to function within societal norms or hold down a job and are therefore living in the streets.

DP. "We think you might be dangerous in the future" is not a sufficient basis to deprive someone of their liberty.

Their "liberty" to sleep and defecate outside and be stoned all of the time. Umm... this is not compassion.

Anonymous wrote:Everyone here is just slinging insults.

The reality is that such a program requires serious public investment to implement. As pointed out, this requires major healthcare resources out of an already strapped and understaffed system from the ground up, meaning investing not only in expanding facility beds and staff, but also even funding tuition for education programs, funding the actual education program itself as we don't have enough.

Just take the "build them homes!!" budget and actually build a facility where they can be housed and kept off the streets.

Everyone here is just slinging insults.

The reality is that such a program requires serious public investment to implement. As pointed out, this requires major healthcare resources out of an already strapped and understaffed system from the ground up, meaning investing not only in expanding facility beds and staff, but also even funding tuition for education programs, funding the actual education program itself as we don't have enough.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not humane to leave sick people out on the street to hurt themselves and others. No rational objective person would choose that life. They need help. I think Adams made the right decision.

.

But his plan SPECIFICALLY is talking about people who are NEITHER a danger to themselves or others.

This is bizarre - living on the streets (especially high) is inherently a danger to themselves AND others.

No one said anything about drugs, that's a separate issue. But simply sleeping on the streets does not endangers anyone, tf are you talking about?

Well, people freeze to death while sleeping outside - so they are a danger to themselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not humane to leave sick people out on the street to hurt themselves and others. No rational objective person would choose that life. They need help. I think Adams made the right decision.

.

But his plan SPECIFICALLY is talking about people who are NEITHER a danger to themselves or others.

This is bizarre - living on the streets (especially high) is inherently a danger to themselves AND others.

No one said anything about drugs, that's a separate issue. But simply sleeping on the streets does not endangers anyone, tf are you talking about?

As a psychologist I am disgusted by this policy and the falsehood in many of the posts here that most homeless and mentally ill people pose a danger to others. Most homeless and mentally ill people are neither violent nor dangerous. I'm not surprised in the least that the pearl clutchers on DCUM have stigma toward the mentally ill and homeless.

As a psychologist you should also know that people suffering from mental illness are unpredictable. They aren’t violent until they are. Additionally, the mentally ill homeless population are not your average people with mental illness. Their illness is already severe enough that they are unable to function within societal norms or hold down a job and are therefore living in the streets.

My MIL had bipolar. She would get delusional and be completely unable to function. More than once I wondered what her life would be like if she didn’t have family and a UMC life to help her. I could picture her as one of the homeless people in NYC. On medication, she was just your run of the mill retired professional, golfing and getting her nails done. If not abused, I am all in favor of committing mentally I’ll people against their will. In fact, we did it for MIL.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not humane to leave sick people out on the street to hurt themselves and others. No rational objective person would choose that life. They need help. I think Adams made the right decision.

.

But his plan SPECIFICALLY is talking about people who are NEITHER a danger to themselves or others.

This is bizarre - living on the streets (especially high) is inherently a danger to themselves AND others.

No one said anything about drugs, that's a separate issue. But simply sleeping on the streets does not endangers anyone, tf are you talking about?

As a psychologist I am disgusted by this policy and the falsehood in many of the posts here that most homeless and mentally ill people pose a danger to others. Most homeless and mentally ill people are neither violent nor dangerous. I'm not surprised in the least that the pearl clutchers on DCUM have stigma toward the mentally ill and homeless.

As a psychologist you should also know that people suffering from mental illness are unpredictable. They aren’t violent until they are. Additionally, the mentally ill homeless population are not your average people with mental illness. Their illness is already severe enough that they are unable to function within societal norms or hold down a job and are therefore living in the streets.

DP. "We think you might be dangerous in the future" is not a sufficient basis to deprive someone of their liberty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not humane to leave sick people out on the street to hurt themselves and others. No rational objective person would choose that life. They need help. I think Adams made the right decision.

.

But his plan SPECIFICALLY is talking about people who are NEITHER a danger to themselves or others.

This is bizarre - living on the streets (especially high) is inherently a danger to themselves AND others.

No one said anything about drugs, that's a separate issue. But simply sleeping on the streets does not endangers anyone, tf are you talking about?

As a psychologist I am disgusted by this policy and the falsehood in many of the posts here that most homeless and mentally ill people pose a danger to others. Most homeless and mentally ill people are neither violent nor dangerous. I'm not surprised in the least that the pearl clutchers on DCUM have stigma toward the mentally ill and homeless.

As a psychologist you should also know that people suffering from mental illness are unpredictable. They aren’t violent until they are. Additionally, the mentally ill homeless population are not your average people with mental illness. Their illness is already severe enough that they are unable to function within societal norms or hold down a job and are therefore living in the streets.

Truthiness.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not humane to leave sick people out on the street to hurt themselves and others. No rational objective person would choose that life. They need help. I think Adams made the right decision.

.

But his plan SPECIFICALLY is talking about people who are NEITHER a danger to themselves or others.

This is bizarre - living on the streets (especially high) is inherently a danger to themselves AND others.

No one said anything about drugs, that's a separate issue. But simply sleeping on the streets does not endangers anyone, tf are you talking about?

As a psychologist I am disgusted by this policy and the falsehood in many of the posts here that most homeless and mentally ill people pose a danger to others. Most homeless and mentally ill people are neither violent nor dangerous. I'm not surprised in the least that the pearl clutchers on DCUM have stigma toward the mentally ill and homeless.

As a psychologist you should also know that people suffering from mental illness are unpredictable. They aren’t violent until they are. Additionally, the mentally ill homeless population are not your average people with mental illness. Their illness is already severe enough that they are unable to function within societal norms or hold down a job and are therefore living in the streets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not humane to leave sick people out on the street to hurt themselves and others. No rational objective person would choose that life. They need help. I think Adams made the right decision.

.

But his plan SPECIFICALLY is talking about people who are NEITHER a danger to themselves or others.

This is bizarre - living on the streets (especially high) is inherently a danger to themselves AND others.

No one said anything about drugs, that's a separate issue. But simply sleeping on the streets does not endangers anyone, tf are you talking about?

As a psychologist I am disgusted by this policy and the falsehood in many of the posts here that most homeless and mentally ill people pose a danger to others. Most homeless and mentally ill people are neither violent nor dangerous. I'm not surprised in the least that the pearl clutchers on DCUM have stigma toward the mentally ill and homeless.

As an an anonymous poster, I am disgusted as I can literally hear the ego and narcissism in your post.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There aren't enough beds in homeless shelters, let alone hospitals. This is a total PR stunt. And the people cheering it would scream bloody murder if a homeless shelter was built anywhere near them, or if public money was spent to build or expand a public hospital that could treat the mentally ill poor.

Perhaps. But they did just build a massive migrant center. So perhaps they will house them with the folks arriving on buses from Texas and Florida.

It's hospitals that would take the brunt of this more than anything as it's where patients would stay while awaiting a plan, and no they don't have beds unless public funds are used to fund adding beds, including funding entire nursing schools/LPN schools to find people staff them (we already don't have enough nurses, and we don't even have enough nursing schools to churn out nurses... and you would require a degree + training that allows you to dispense medications which nurse's aide cannot do).

If you're ok raising your taxes to help create such a program, have at it.

Anonymous wrote:There aren't enough beds in homeless shelters, let alone hospitals. This is a total PR stunt. And the people cheering it would scream bloody murder if a homeless shelter was built anywhere near them, or if public money was spent to build or expand a public hospital that could treat the mentally ill poor.

Perhaps. But they did just build a massive migrant center. So perhaps they will house them with the folks arriving on buses from Texas and Florida.

There aren't enough beds in homeless shelters, let alone hospitals. This is a total PR stunt. And the people cheering it would scream bloody murder if a homeless shelter was built anywhere near them, or if public money was spent to build or expand a public hospital that could treat the mentally ill poor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not humane to leave sick people out on the street to hurt themselves and others. No rational objective person would choose that life. They need help. I think Adams made the right decision.

.

But his plan SPECIFICALLY is talking about people who are NEITHER a danger to themselves or others.

This is bizarre - living on the streets (especially high) is inherently a danger to themselves AND others.

No one said anything about drugs, that's a separate issue. But simply sleeping on the streets does not endangers anyone, tf are you talking about?

As a psychologist I am disgusted by this policy and the falsehood in many of the posts here that most homeless and mentally ill people pose a danger to others. Most homeless and mentally ill people are neither violent nor dangerous. I'm not surprised in the least that the pearl clutchers on DCUM have stigma toward the mentally ill and homeless.

So as a psychologist you are ok with people living on the streets?