|
The all-too-familiar sight of a person struggling with mental illness on a sidewalk is maddening, frustrating and heartrending. Why are lost souls left to themselves in a society that values humane care and public safety?
An answer may be taking shape. A proposed change in state law would give judges clearer direction to direct out-of-control people into mental health programs, taking them off the streets to break an endless cycle of misery. Expanding the legal reach of conservatorships makes sense in helping a troubling part of the homeless problem.
The idea of more forceful oversight isn’t new. What’s changed is the degree of the problem as San Francisco’s homeless population persists and other cities report soaring numbers. A slice of this population routinely ends up in jail, court and health clinics, where they are typically held briefly and released.
These frequent offenders often sober up or get straight before a court appearance, leaving a judge little choice but to let them go until the next time. The needed change would give the judges broader sway in conferring conservatorships on the mentally ill and drug-addicted for more long-term treatment.
The solution is gathering widespread support, a sign that concerns about civil liberties or judicial overreach are subsiding. The measure is backed by state Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat and former supervisor familiar with homeless issues. He’s backed by board President London Breed and interim Mayor Mark Farrell, both with ample experience on the topic. San Francisco’s homeless-weary public needs little convincing.
The arguments are easy to understand. No one is getting help by acting out on the streets. People stuck in wheelchairs or left in an alley can’t care for themselves even as they brush off the overtures of health and social workers. Spinning through the system to no result isn’t the answer. In the face of these realities, it’s time to modernize and strengthen the legal rules, which serve neither the general public nor the homeless.
The solution is gathering widespread support, a sign that concerns about civil liberties or judicial overreach are subsiding. The measure is backed by state Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat and former supervisor familiar with homeless issues. He’s backed by board President London Breed and interim Mayor Mark Farrell, both with ample experience on the topic. San Francisco’s homeless-weary public needs little convincing.
The arguments are easy to understand. No one is getting help by acting out on the streets. People stuck in wheelchairs or left in an alley can’t care for themselves even as they brush off the overtures of health and social workers. Spinning through the system to no result isn’t the answer. In the face of these realities, it’s time to modernize and strengthen the legal rules, which serve neither the general public nor the homeless.
The measure, SB1045, expands the definition of “gravely disabled” to take in a person’s total record of substance abuse, repeated court appearances and heavy use of emergency services. That’s a useful update that acknowledges the everyday challenge of handling homelessness.
A conservatorship would put a person into a long-term program where progress can be monitored in a full-time setting. No quick sobering up and then back on the street again.
The bill is only in preliminary form, a sensible start on an issue that needs thought and widespread buy-in. Not only are personal rights an issue, but so is establishing an orderly plan for caring for candidates for conservatorship.
While those concerns merit consideration, they’re dwarfed by the human toll that every onlooker sees. Drugs, alcohol and severe mental illness are creating a crisis that needs a serious and workable answer. Conservatorships should play a role in ending a persistent and disturbing side of homelessness.
This commentary is from The Chronicle’s editorial board. We invite you to express your views in a letter to the editor. Please submit your letter via our online form: SFChronicle.com/letters. |
