Seattle Faces Backlash After Easing on Crimes Involving Mental Illness

Well of course, they've made their career in this. If people are no longer homeless under the common definition of the term, these people would be without a job, so they have to do marketing work to change the goal posts to justify their existence.

It makes zero sense to set dollars on fire by housing people in one of the highest cost of living markets in the world.

If you place a chronically homeless, bi-polar, heroin addict into an apartment they will not get better, they will continue their previous life until they’ve broken their lease and are evicted; none of the “housing first” programs aimed at the “visibly homeless” we’re talking about do this, they provide housing along with a robust support system to get these people medical and mental healthcare as well as addiction recovery. It is a good model but I’ve too frequently seen them mischaracterized as just providing free rent, that isn’t what they do and that would fail. They are essentially just a reimagined mental health institute with far more freedom for the patients.

I would like to dispute that. This WaPo [1] article paints a far less rosy picture.

Addiction is a symptom of mental illness (and in all likelihood may be genetic). Look at the rates of smoking among people with schizophrenia [2], they're much higher than the general population, and the usual purported causes fall flat.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-housed-t...

[2] https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/11/schizophrenia-no-smoki...

The same drug courts and facilities exist on the west coast, but they are underutilized because there is no incentive. No criminal or civil justice funnel. People are just set loose.

Intervention helps those who are beyond helping themselves. A free place with no strings attached does not do nearly as much to help those who truly need help.

  They slept in their office on campus. 

Is a student living in a dorm "homeless", now, too?

More to the point, a criminal minority. It's mostly lawbreaking that makes this minority visible: assault, robbery, theft, dumping waste, etc.

> If these people were committed to mental health facilities I think everybody would be better off.

I agree and in particular, even the invisible majority. Talk to anyone who knows anything about the homeless problem and they'll tell you that homeless people are very frequently victims of crimes themselves. They don't have the shelter or resources to protect themselves, so they are easy picking for criminals.

So getting this small number of actively harmful homeless people off the street — remediating them or not — will help improve the quality of life and safety of an even larger number of other homeless people.

In California, you will hear people complaining about every community in the South-West paying for buses to transport their homeless into California.

This has occasionally happened, but in a very sporadic way.

So, I think that, for the most part, both the Californians, and the non-Californians who believe this are wrong.

Note, I don't think the solution is necessarily to reverse these policies. But this is one explanation for why homelessness seems much more visible now than it used to be.

There are other factors increasing homelessness in general, namely substance abuse and increasing housing costs. If you have a poor support network and are living paycheck to paycheck (like most Americans actually do), you are one incident at work + eviction away from homelessness. Substance abuse and untreated mental illness make these worse.

Also there are some pernicious cycles that are hard to avoid with homelessness. Namely that homeless people, as you mention, tend to congregate in large wealthy cities that have lots of services for the homeless. These cities tend to have very high rents so it makes getting out of homelessness more difficult as long as they stay in the city.

[1] https://www.curbed.com/2019/4/5/18296772/homeless-lawsuit-bo...

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.

> The Seattle Municipal Court judge made the decision to dismiss all of the assault charges stemming from these recent arrests.

I have so many questions

You might say that all government is sclerotic, but the ones in california & SF are extra sclerotic compared to others around the world.

Look at prop 13, $500k 'environmental reviews' for a $5k mural on a wall, how an HSR project is super expensive compared to the rest of the world and will probably fail, how the sf city council denies anything that would make building housing better, a fucking buslane on geary can't get made or a 1.5 mile subway takes 20 years and on and on it goes. And california is an incredibly wealth economy on top of it that can easily afford this stuff compared to other countries.

Also there is a dynamic in places like LA or the bay area, where many newcomers are on visas or green cards, are a significant % of the population and can't vote on issues as a result, skewing the political power base.

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.

My Brother lived in Seattle and had severe psychosis for several years. Cutting holes in the walls to find the hidden cameras, refusing to eat because the food was poisoned, etc. The rest of the family lives out of state and no amount of begging the police and social workers would get him into a stable environment. I was told that there were only 80 beds available for in-patient mental health services in all of King County. Multiple episodes of self-harm and threatened suicide had no effect whatsoever on the treatment options available. He would go into a meeting with a case worker raving about gang stalking and CIA assassins, with words carved in his arms, and they would just tell him to come back in a week for a check in. A person in this state does not believe that there is anything wrong with them, and will not seek or accept help. The only way we were able to get him treatment was to physically fly out there and force him to leave for Illinois where some family members live. Now, imagine a person in that condition who has no one that is willing or able to intervene, and you can see how complicated this problem is.

And that's the crux-at what point do we do for them what they can't/won't do for themselves?

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

That's kind of the problem though. You can't just blame someone who is mentally ill for not seeking help. In the UK, for example, you can be sectioned.

"The Mental Health Act says when you can be taken to hospital, kept there, and treated against your wishes. This can only happen if you have a mental disorder that puts you, or others, at risk.

You should only be detained under the Mental Health Act if there are no other ways to keep you, or others, safe."

https://www.rethink.org/advice-and-information/rights-restri...

Think about what you're saying. Really think about it. Your broken leg comparison completely misses the mark. How about this scenario?

You are walking and step into the street. You are hit by a bus but survive. You have massive head trauma. At this point nobody else should administer care without first speaking with you and having you acknowledge that you need care. You need to then respond in a coherent manner that explicitly allows you to be cared for before anyone is legally allowed to help you. How do you think that is going to work out for you?

But that's part of the brokenness of the system being complained about.

We need to be careful about compulsory treatment and detention without trial, but other countries manage it without it being catastrophic - at least not as catastrophic as leaving people addicted to drugs, mentally ill, and living on the street.

There is a fundamental hard problem here that many people who think there are easy solutions ignore: how do we as a society fairly determine who can have their autonomy taken from them? Where do we draw the line between personal responsibility, mental illness, and willful criminal intent?

In the past, the line was drawn too far towards the state and family and there were innumerable horror stories of "difficult" women being lobotomized and locked up in sanitoria for life because their family didn't want to deal with their rebellious ways.

The deinstitutionalization movement swung the pendulum the other way and said, basically, you're completely responsible for yourself all the way up until you commit an actual crime. Because criminality is now the line, it means the police end up dealing with the mentally ill more than they should.

The right point is somewhere between these, but drawing it fairly is hard and we don't have great social structures to support it. (In particular, how does society allow the medical infrastructure decide who should have autonomy in a country that doesn't even provide any right to medical access in the first place?)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anosognosia

If criminal justice was actually about getting people the help they need rather than doing time, that'd be totally different.

To my knowledge, she was never really aggressive, violent, nor into self-harm. She was only a risk to herself or her children due to impaired decision making. Her encounters with law enforcement would be things like running a red light while in a delusional panic or because she called to report imaginary prowlers. I think her family and doctor were instrumental in getting her committed when she resisted treatment and her condition regressed. It's possible that her first encounters in the 1960s happened when the system was more willing to declare someone unfit, and then her existing history made it easier to repeat the process in later decades. It takes someone to track and pursue, rather than just expecting some random public servant to recognize the need based on one transient encounter with the case.

But, it was also her family that kept her going outside the brief psychiatric holds. This supportive environment is what seems to be most lacking in modern society, but also is the least feasible for the state itself to provide. I don't see how you can expect much better than the kind of institutional living that has been dismantled. How many patients have to share one doctor, nurse, or orderly?

And, from what I know of this woman, even her successful case took a huge toll on those family members who provided ongoing support. Where can the state find caregivers to provide similar effort for all the less fortunate patients who do not have the supporting family or friends?

But I would hope that with knowing what we do now about mental illness we would have many layers of intervention before we get to that level.

Imagine if theirs a kid getting into trouble regularly at school because of their mental health status. Rather than wait until that turns into a violent episode that gets the kid in jail or committed the court could assign that kid a mentor. Someone they have to spend 10 hours a week with and who they can call on for anything. That can change the trajectory of a kid's life. We know this because the number one difference between people with mental illness that succeed and those that fail is whether they have a support network.

Court mandated mentoring, support networks and counselling before, not after a major incident are all relatively low touch interventions that would be hugely beneficial. And we do some of this now. It just mostly comes after the criminal justice system has already begun to see the person as a criminal because it usually follows a significant crime.

Of course this cuta against the American psyche. We want to have 100% all our rights with no government intervention until we've proved we shouldn't. Then the government should have radical powers to shape our lives.

But maybe if we could come to see government more like the way doctors see medical treatment. The more unobtrusive it is the more we should allow. And the more intrusive it is, the more we should be nervous of its application.

The diagnosis is simple. We have a cycle of sympathizing and then cracking down on marginalized people and it stems from having a one size fits all approach to social problems.

The solution of course is terribly complex. It stresses some of the most difficult questions of Western social philosophy. Such as how much should we respect the individual will vs. the collective need? And what is our obligation to the needy? And how much power over others should we place in the system or delegate to people?

Lifting people out of crisis is tremendously difficult and I actually don't know how we deal with the number of people we have in crisis now.

And yes such an institution would be totally hamstrung if we don't address costs through zoning and permit reform.

These cities don’t have a municipal homeless problem; they’re sacrificial goats for entire nations’ homeless problems.

Drugs. It's pretty hard to get yourself out of a bad situation when literally the mechanism in your brain that rewards smart behavior has been taken over by heroin and meth.

Ultimately, we do what our brains chemically reward us for doing. If heroin feels better than getting off the street and living a decent life then being a homeless drug user is the best achievement you can have. Heroin is fucked up.

Usually you can spot the cars that are homes, at least where I live.

It’s likely got something to do with incentives, money earned panhandleing is at least the same as minimum wage probably better, then no taxes and it’s all cash so doesn’t count against government benefits so you can double/triple dip.

You are fortunate and very lucky in this respect. But I would encourage you to stay situationally aware because the city is getting more dangerous and shit-filled.

I have been, twice in the last years. Spit on and punched at (the attacker was frail and tweaking, disturbing and menacing but physically unable to hit hard). Other good friends have gotten black eyes and so forth. This is in sf which has a more severe problem (though it is serious in Seattle).

This is to say nothing about day to day issues. Last time my wife ride Bart, a man got on and ranted angrily about “bitches”, though to nobody in general. In this case people just avoid eve contact.

It has gotten very very bad.

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.

When working by the viaduct and Ferry Terminal our build slept a large number of people in the evenings on the sidewalk. One instance in particular stands out- someone had taken a shit into a 7/11 tall plastic cup, and I can only assume mixed it with some liquid adhesive, then flung the shit into a huge splatter against the sidewalk under the metal stairs down from the walking bridge. It stayed for quite a while, as the incentive to clean it up had passed- the building was being emptied to be demolished and security and other services had been stopped. But don't think this was a lone incident, as the back of the building would resemble the trope of the underside of a desk with boogers, except someone (or some group of people) were throwing shit (literally) against the back of the building.

Be interesting and depresisng to make map for people to use like that but I am not sure how it wouldn't devolve into fearmongering like nextdoor does.

I feel bad for the occasional wide eyed family from the burbs I see walking streets even I wouldn't dare tread on from my car or lyft.

edited typo

Hey look, I get it, being homeless sucks, but the situation the OP is describing is not working. Seattle, SF & LA have all become shit cities because of the way the govt handles homelessness. They enable not assist.

It costs more to keep someone in prison than in a mental health facility, and the latter has the chance of assisting recovery, but yay prisons!

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/...

Look, the standard needs to be fairly high. But don't these people need to be in treatment for long enough that it actually changes things for them? Is anything else going to work?

Or do we say that their right to not be forced into something they don't want supercedes both their need and the need of society?

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.

In Latin America, for example, it is seriously hard to get ahold of anything but marijuana and cocaine, even for young hip people in-the-know with the right people.

Only in a few small markets in Europe like major cities in the UK and cities with liberal drug use policies like Amsterdam do you get comparable drug accessibility. And even then it's still a far cry from what's available in the US.

Besides street drugs, there are prescription drugs, and even there the US is exceptional in the availability of prescription drugs available via the black market.

I’ve lived in towns of about 15,000 that had the problem as well.

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.

Take the case of the late Terry Davis for instance. He was living with his parents for years, but their relationship deteriorated as his illness progressed and in the end he died homeless. I don't think you can rightly blame his parents for that.

This is bizarre to me. I grew up with three generations under one roof. We were a family and none of us were considered ‘homeless’.

The definition has becoming so broad to include so many different kinds of people that the cynic in me feels like the homeless activists and non profits and govt bloat benefits from inflating the numbers somehow with their ‘census’ taking..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc

They require local stations to play pre-recorded, "must run" commentary, as well as requiring their anchors to recite a script accusing other news outlets of running "fake news". https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/how-americas-largest-local...

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.

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.

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).

> We are making a choice to punish people for their illnesses.

We are making a choice to punish people for their behavior. Their behavior may be due to their illnesses, but the two shouldn't be reflexively equated. Not unless you genuinely desire society to actively seek to punish illness instead of concerning itself with behavior.

It's perhaps worth remembering that the American public did not turn against institutionalization for no reason. Those places were visions of Hell that would have turned Danté's stomach. These visions were conjured into reality by our Progressive desires to help the less fortunate meeting an inability to do so reliably and humanely at scale.

Good intentions, kindness and compassion and a genuine desire to help, were not enough. I won't fault anyone for being skeptical about that being fundamentally different now.

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.

But, I think it’s also counterproductive to pretend that we currently have the knowledge and technology to turn all of these people into productive members of society. Some of them have indeed been dealt a bad genetic hand, and giving them a house isn’t going to fix it. The guy yelling nonsense at the sky and stabbing people needs more than I know how to give him, and it’s too late to make sure his parents feed him his green beans.

So, I’m definitely open to discussing medium and long term solutions, and investing tax money into helping this problem have reasonable outcomes for all the badness involved. But I’m not happy to wait a generation for these to take place, and just hope these violent maniacs don’t kill someone, or throw a five year old kid off the upper floor of a mall...oh wait, that already happened.

Downvoters should provide some supporting points. While you may not be impacted by this daily, many of us actually are accosted by aggressive homeless and even attacked in some instances. Many simply refuse to comply for treatment and at some point when a problem gets bad enough you have to step your treatments.

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.