this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
1268 points (98.0% liked)
Solarpunk Urbanism
1844 readers
1 users here now
A community to discuss solarpunk and other new and alternative urbanisms that seek to break away from our currently ecologically destructive urbanisms.
- Henri Lefebvre, The Right to the City — In brief, the right to the city is the right to the production of a city. The labor of a worker is the source of most of the value of a commodity that is expropriated by the owner. The worker, therefore, has a right to benefit from that value denied to them. In the same way, the urban citizen produces and reproduces the city through their own daily actions. However, the the city is expropriated from the urbanite by the rich and the state. The right to the city is therefore the right to appropriate the city by and for those who make and remake it.
Checkout these related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And what do you do with the mentally ill homeless who refuse services and help? Cause I'm my city those are the homeless that remain. And until people accept that some will have to be taken off the streets and forced into help, against their will, then we're always gonna have this issue.
My city provides great homeless services, but only if you ask or want them. If you're the guy who doesn't know or want help and running around the subway threatening and harassing people, you get to stay on the street and do as you want.
Unhoused people refuse help because past "help" failed them or people they know, or "help" comes with conditions that are unacceptable to them, or "help" will not solve the actual problems they have. The solution is not to force people into institutions that abuse them, neglect them, and then kick them out for failing to follow arbitrary rules.
I mean, if you have a dog, and the shelters don't allow dogs, what do you do? What sane person would risk their dog being put down at the pound in exchange for a few weeks of housing - housing, moreover, that is demonstratively less safe than living on the street?
The solution is to improve the services available without conditions so that unhoused people feel safe in asking for those services.
There are a small number of people who genuinely cannot make decisions because they cannot comprehend reality. And those people need help, possibly involuntary help. But even then, that doesn't mean taking them away from the people and places they know and locking them up. People blame Reagan's deinstitutionalization of mentally ill people in the '80s for the current homeless crisis - people forget Reagan's deinstitutionalization policy was popular because insane asylums were horrifically incompetent and abusive.
And if you see a homeless person experiencing a mental health crisis or acting irrational in public, please remember, they have no private place to go - how would you come off to the public if your worst moments had to be displayed in public? - and then ask yourself whether their actions are making you feel unsafe, or merely uncomfortable.
I wish more people went to the Glore Psychiatric Museum in St Joseph, MO. Here's a famous display from that museum, for "pica":
That museum really really shows how little difference there was in the way we treated patients of asylums, versus inmates, versus prisoners of war. There are so many torture devices in there, disguised as medical devices. As someone formerly in the bioengineering field, it was a sober warning to the harm that can be created through "medical" devices and our own hubris and cruelty.
People have no idea what those were like. And how unethical forced imprisonment is. That should make everyone recoil. I thought we all hated slavery, right? It would be more compassionate to let them set up squats and car camps than to force institutionalization on them.
Ps the above picture results in the patient dying. It was one of the first surgeries to remove stomach contents and anesthesia wasn't refined/good back then. So they performed an experimental procedure on a patient who couldn't consent to it and who DIDN'T consent to it, and she died from it. That's what asylums were like.
Well, having a home will help their mental illness because they'll be able to develop a circadian rhythm, sleep, not be constantly stressed. They are more likely to be able to take their meds on time. They can spend time on their phones to relax because they will have access to chargers/electricity. Very very few people are so mentally disabled they need assisted living, and those people don't usually stay alive on the streets.
And this time of year gets extra crazy homeless/street people because of sunstroke, heatstroke, and dehydration which they also would be able to avoid in a home. It's probably your same local homeless people, just some are allowed in libraries and places with AC, and the ones that aren't are getting extra agitated.
Like literally, cosplay homelessness in your city at peak heat times and no money. How would you cool off if you can't go in a store? Where is the nearest shade you can sit and rest in? How cool are you, really? Many city have designed infrastructure specifically so homeless can't cool off. That makes everything worse. Including with climate change for housed people.
You sound very idealistic. I have a cousin who is willingly homeless. He has places he can stay, jobs he's been offered. He doesn't want it.
Well, I speak to a lot of homeless people. Maybe your cousin is trans or has some other identity issue or a disability that makes it hard for him to stay with people. What started him living on the street? Why did he initially move out of your aunt and uncle's house and at what age? Are they religious? Does he have trauma with caregivers such as sexual assault? How do you know he doesn't?
And fine, let him live on the streets and camp if he doesn't want free and clear housing. People camp all the time. He shouldn't be harassed for it. We are animals, we belong outside anyway if we so choose. I know people who have hiked for months across America. There are people who live in the middle of nowhere in Alaska. Why should people be prevented from living freely? Think throughout history - the idea is preposterous. The only reason we force institutionalization is to get slave labor.
He's just mentally ill, refuses help and just can't handle the responsibility of just living. It's sad, but yeah it's like he craves the homelessness and lack of any expectations maybe? His parents are well off so he has everything he needs at home, but he doesn't want it. He's been taken to mental health professionals and programs but he doesn't want to take part. He would honestly just rather live under a bridge, I don't know what it is.
So you don't know why and are just speculating.
I know more than you
So much arrogance and yet you have no firsthand accounts from your cousin, from his pov, why he doesn't want to live at home
You can thank Reagan for shutting down the mental institutions instead of fixing them.
We just let our mentally ill roam the streets now, even the veterans
Why should mental illness be a crime someone is locked up for? And what level of crazy is permitted so you can maintain your freedom? Depression? Anxiety? PTSD? What if someone is mentally fine but might appear otherwise, like if they have cerebral palsy? Should we lock them up too?
If I could create the system it would be the level at which you cannot sustain yourself outside the system. But I would not be treating them in with the level at which you're a danger to others. Two different systems with two different goals. It would be far more residential, an apartment building with a clinic on the ground floor type thing. Everyone jumps straight to lockdown wards but it doesn't have to be that.
Well, if the residents are free to leave, then what you're proposing is assisted living or a permeable institution, not a traditional institution. Institution by the traditional colloquial definition, means they cannot leave and they have their personal liberties taken. Everyone thinks you mean "lockdown" because that's what an institution is to pretty much everyone. If you specify "permeable institution," or "assisted living," it would better convey your meaning
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3702490/
I think someone benefits from creating that expectation, but nobody I've talked to wants to bring back cold war era mental institutions.
There are literally people itt advocating for it. I have seen people advocate for putting homeless in prisons and even concentration/work camps. People 100000% advocate for that type of psychiatric institution. In fact, per the link in my previous comment, the vast majority of psychiatric institutions are this type of "lockdown" institution and it is actually an exception to the norm and a new style of institution to do the permeable institution. So if you mean a permeable institution, you should specify that if you want to be understood, because that's what common use means.
Words mean things. People are cruel. Can't assume you aren't cruel. Use right word if you want to be understood.
Oh I know there are people advocating to abuse homeless people. But when you assume all mental health facilities are lockdown facilities for dangerous people you're hurting the entire mental health community. When pressed, people do not want lockdown facilities.
Okay, great. Maybe next time clarify your meaning by saying "permeable institutions" or "assisted living," so that people don't assume you're using the most common colloquial definition of "institution," and so you don't accidentally spread pro-traditional institution messages.
Obviously that's why they were shut down. There were serious ethical issues..
But why did we throw out the baby with the bathwater? Why throw them on the streets instead of fixing the system?
Of course I don't want people with anxiety locked up. What about we give very mentally ill a place to go? And those who are hurting themselves or others are sent there against their will.
Well, anyone could say somrone was crazy and they'd maybe get locked up. Women were getting diagnosed with hysteria and lobotomized. You can't really fix a system that takes away people's autonomy as the main feature of that system. Like people who get PTSD and are disempowered are the ones being diagnosed and locked up - even though it actually seems pretty rational to develop PTSD from the stuff they went through. So are they actually crazy, or are they victims?
It's really not that simple, and this is forced imprisonment we're talking about here. Not even in the fields of ethics and bioethics do we have concrete answers.
https://journals.academiczone.net/index.php/ijfe/article/view/2261