Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Historically, it meant making it someone else's problem (1-way ticket to SF) which I agree is indeed problematic

No, even local relocation (like forcing people into shelters for services) has been problematic historically.

> Many of these people need long term mental healthcare, and is the main reason they are homeless.

Yes, a minority do, and institutionalization (which, generally, might as well be outside of SF) may help a fraction of that minority.

Forced dislocation would also probably aggravate mental health problems for some others in (and out) of that that minority.

> Our current system is not well suited at helping people with mental disorders.

Sure, but “ship people elsewhere”, even if the responsibility doesn't shift, isn't a solution to that.



A cursory google search reveals that 1 in 4 of those in homeless shelters have a severe mental disorder. Nearly 1 in 2 have severe mental disorders and substance abuse problems.

These numbers do not paint a small minority that could benefit from institutionalization or other forms or long-term care, and our current system is poorly setup to handle these issues.


> A cursory google search reveals that 1 in 4 of those in homeless shelters have a severe mental disorder.

The number I'm familiar with is 35%, but either is a minority.

> These numbers do not paint a small minority

Which is probably why I never qualified “minority” with “small”.


I got my numbers from here:

https://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-By-the-Numbers

> ...may help a fraction of that minority. > Which is probably why I never qualified “minority” with “small”.

I believe we're now arguing about semantics, so lets agree to disagree.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: