San Fran OKs Expanding Involuntary Mental Health Treatment

This is a serious question.  Under the new San Fran law allowing the involuntary mental institution of people for serious mental illness issues, who is first to be locked up?  The voters or the politicians.  The sane people have left the city, leaving behind only the rich and the crazies. 

“San Francisco leaders approved a controversial measure Tuesday that will empower city health officials to force certain people with mental health and drug use problems off city streets and into treatment.

“I believe we have a duty to help the most vulnerable in our city struggling with mental illness and substance use disorders,” San Francisco Board of Supervisors President Norman Yee said Tuesday before the proposal was approved in a 10-1 vote.

The ordinance, supported by Mayor London Breed, will expand a legal process known as conservatorships through a five-year pilot program. It will allow courts to appoint a public conservator to those involuntarily detained for psychiatric hospitalization at least eight times in one year under section 5150 of California’s welfare and institutions code.

You know the “qualifications” for internment is what it says today.  Will they consider support for President Trump a mental illness?  They say they do publicly—why not consider it a real mental illness.

San Francisco OKs Expanding Involuntary Mental Health Treatment

NICHOLAS IOVINO, Courthousenews,  6/4/19 

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – San Francisco leaders approved a controversial measure Tuesday that will empower city health officials to force certain people with mental health and drug use problems off city streets and into treatment.

“I believe we have a duty to help the most vulnerable in our city struggling with mental illness and substance use disorders,” San Francisco Board of Supervisors President Norman Yee said Tuesday before the proposal was approved in a 10-1 vote.

The ordinance, supported by Mayor London Breed, will expand a legal process known as conservatorships through a five-year pilot program. It will allow courts to appoint a public conservator to those involuntarily detained for psychiatric hospitalization at least eight times in one year under section 5150 of California’s welfare and institutions code.

The city’s Department of Public Health estimates it will affect 50 to 100 people who were detained at least six or seven times over 12 months. The involuntary residential treatment can last up to a year.

In the city’s Tenderloin District, people perched on sidewalks injecting needles in limbs, splayed out over sewer caps soaking up steam or speaking incoherently as they dart into rush-hour traffic is an all too common scene.

Critics of the conservatorship expansion say it violates the civil rights of the city’s most vulnerable population and gives police officers enhanced power to recommend certain people be forced into treatment. 

San Francisco Supervisor Shamann Walton, who voted against the proposal, said he was particularly concerned with its impact on people of color.

“What can we try to do to mitigate the fact that any time we take freedoms away from populations, it’s typically black people and people of color,” Walton asked. “I haven’t gotten any response from the Department of Public Health in terms of what they would even try to do to mitigate that fact.”

To alleviate some of the concerns raised, the ordinance was amended to include requirements that one must refuse voluntary treatment and housing assistance before they can be compelled into treatment.

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, who co-sponsored the legislation, also added requirements to track data on how many people are placed in conservatorships and how many are initiated by police officers. The first report will be delivered to the mayor and board of supervisors after six months.

Representing the city’s Sunset District, Supervisor Gordon Mar said the conservatorship expansion should be part of a broader strategy to address the city’s mental health and drug addiction crises.

The city spends nearly $400 million a year on mental health services, serving about 30,000 people through 300 programs with 2,000 mental health beds. In April, the mayor announced plans to add 100 residential treatment beds to the city’s behavioral health system.

Several supervisors are also proposing a ballot initiative this year that would guarantee universal mental health services for all city residents.

The mayor’s office did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment Tuesday afternoon, but as a sponsor of the legislation Breed is expected to approve the conservatorship expansion. It will require one more vote of approval by the board.

Also on Tuesday, the board voted to close the city’s 150-bed juvenile hall, which is typically less than a third full while the annual cost of incarcerating a child rose to $374,000 in 2018. The juvenile hall is set to close by December 2021 as city officials work on developing alternatives to incarceration.

About Stephen Frank

Stephen Frank is the publisher and editor of California Political News and Views. He speaks all over California and appears as a guest on several radio shows each week. He has also served as a guest host on radio talk shows. He is a fulltime political consultant.

Comments

  1. askeptic says

    Yes, the leadership of ‘Frisco needs serious help with ITS mental health problem. Until they recover their senses, nothing will change.

  2. Ellen West says

    During the 1970’s, the ACLU pressured then-Governor Reagan to close several California Mental Hospitals claiming it was a violation of a person’s civil rights. Now the lefty loonies are in charge – they get to decide who to put away. Don’t worry leftists are vindictive evil creatures.

  3. Not all of us stuck for now in San Francisco are crazy, but as I told FBI Agents a few years ago in deliberate, slow Southern speak, “I am not crazy —- but I can get crazy!!!” (Which sent them into peals of knowing laughter).

    Over all the seriously – seriously, dangerous, filthy, dirty, lawless corruption in San Francisco. Had enough long ago, looking for a way out.

    Two words illustrate the massive corruption: Millenium Tower. “Expedited” by a lawyer, overriding all the engineers saying you shouldn’t put it there. (For those who don’t know, “expediting” is another term for “kickbacks” done by your local gardener/plumber/contractor/accountant/lawyer[‘ running permits through…..). [Sorry Steve, attorneys should NOT be doing permits}.

    440 condo owners’ finances and lives destroyed, and if it falls, it may go straight into the now tallest tower on the Left Coast, Salesforce. Oh yes. Crazytown heading for “majuh” (major) “Dis-as as-tuh” (disaster) as they say in the South, a stressing of the syllables, which means “going to hell in a handbasket extremely quickly”.

    A very dogged, smart attorney could take them all down here with just what I know and have to deal with. The Department of Building Inspection and the hoodoo going on at Planning and Building, with the Willie Brown firm heavily involved in it?

    Oh my! A permanent smackdown would be easy for a smart attorney.

    And that would start busting up the corruption. Control freak dictatorships need to go.

    The Building Department in San Francisco (DBI) allows that firm to run plans & permits through without going through normal processes. I have hard evidence, on one project I was doing that the Owner and his attorney brought the Willie Brown firm in to do all the work with the City. Against State LIcense Law, I might add, which requires only the Architect or Engineer of Record or their direct employee who works in their office discuss/deal with plans reviewers.

    That’s not happening with the Willie Brown Law firm. Planning Residential Design Team reviews, held in utter secret normally, happen without submitting Site Permits with that firm. Backdated comments arrive 10 months later, after supposed meetings, with the comments memo dated the day before the supposed meeting. And without express, direct written permission of this architect, they had an outside (not their interior expediting team) put in plans of mine without my permission.

    In this case, the San Francisco DBI allowed an “expediter” to take plans of mine in without my permission. And that Willie Brown firm did not have my permission to do so. State License Law requires our plans are copyrighted and I show copyright of my drawings. You would think that a City Government Office would demand a letter from the copyright holder not present allowing the person present making submissions being allowed to do so.

    But oh, no, they fought me on it. And knew darn well that the expediter in question they caught two years ago having stolen drawings of mine on a restaurant and signed them, and their clerks took them in. The plans reviewer caught it, called me to come in immediately, I identified the plans, they had my copyright on them!!!!, totally puzzled, they tried to get the City Attorney to prosecute the expediter, and the City Attorney refused.

    But more hoodoo on that one has gone on.

    Go after the Dictator in charge, you clean up San Francisco. Don’t, expect the ongoing disasters. And yes, they will touch you, too.

Speak Your Mind

*