During a manufactured housing crisis that is only getting worse though…
I'll admit I don't know enough about the NY housing market to comment on this - what do you mean by this?
The state of New York could buy these homes and use them to re-home individuals placed into them or repurpose them.
Sure, if the people that own them wanted to sell them.
Or build new, affordable housing.
But many of these people couldn't afford "affordable housing", so it would need to be free. Food would need to be free, electricity would need to be free, water, internet, etc would all need to be free (for them, but paid for by taxpayers). Also where is the new affordable housing being built, and who is paying for it?
Are you seriously arguing for renting and no social safety net?
Huh? The point was that using YOUR scenario, people could easily abuse the system to simply get free housing/food/etc by missing a rent payment and getting taken away and given a free house/food/etc.
only that they appear mentally ill to first responders. They are not able to diagnose this.
Nope, it doesn't say that at all. It's mentally ill people who are clearly having an episode. You're reading this:
who cannot meet their own basic needs such as food, shelter or medical care.
and pretending that it means that if someone can't pay their rent for the month because they had a large unexpected bill will be put in an involuntary hold in a mental institution lol.
There are economic and societal reasons for individuals to not be able to meet those needs.
Cool, and if that was the case then the person isn't going to be put on an involuntary hold are they? No, because that's not having a mental illness episode where they have had the police called on them because of it.
the one that explicitly states being homeless is a mental illness, being unable to procure food legally is a mental illness
It doesn't state that at all. That's your poor reading and comprehension skills at play.
and that all first responders, i.e. cops that are absolutely not trained to deal with mental illness, are the sole arbiters of who gets these holds now.
The whole point of this is that now instead of police being dispatched as first responders, it will be unarmed trained mental health professionals. So it's the exact opposite of what you're saying it is.
In 2022, there were over 1 million vacant houses just in the state of New York.
Vacant does not mean government owned. Homeowners can do whatever they want with their homes, including leaving them vacant. So again, what free housing would be used to house all these people? Also the way you describe this, it would be ripe for abuse by people who just want a free house wouldn't it? Just don't pay your rent and get taken away to be given a free house and food and all your bills paid!
If there are over a MILLION vacant houses, and 350k (or slighty more) homeless people, what the fuck are we doing?
See above.
5150 holds are a minimum of 24 and have no maximum. Not ‘just’ 24 hours.
I didn't say they are ONLY 24 hours, read what I said again. I said that you can't walk out of jail 24 hours later. With mental health holds you absolutely can sometimes, probably most times. Not all, but I didn't say you could.
You also have to prove the conditions that caused you to be admitted arent going to happen immediately, which is impossible if you’re homeless or were made homeless by your confinement.
If the condition that caused you to be admitted was "being homeless", which it isn't.
That is actual reality and actually what happens.
those forced into hospitalization have such a significantly higher incidence of being assaulted
So you get put on a mental health hold and you just start getting molested by orderlys immediately? What stats do you have for how many people on these holds are sexually abused almost immediately?
And to your third point, that’s my point. Its not just going to be used on the unsightly or dangerous
But that wasn't your point. Your point was that it was vague enough so it isn't only used against the homeless, despite it never being aimed at just the homeless lol.
one that has extremely low standards to apply, and one that is applied by people that objectively are not trained to make the determination.
Sources please :)
There is no due process or evidence before they are kidnapped in this instance.
If you ignore the due process and evidence I guess. This is for when police would have been dispatched to a mental health emergency.
They are homeless because they lack funds.
And they often lack the funds because of their severe mental illness that makes them unable to function properly in society. It's hard to hold down a job (or even get one) when you think that everyone is a lizard person who is trying to take over the world and are laying eggs in peoples brains, because of severe mental illness.
I have suggested multiple times that they be given all social supports that are available to them. If they require that, they should be given that option.
And every time you've suggested that and people have asked "but what if they don't take any of the help or suggestions" you've just gone "oh well that's up to them because it's a free country" and wiped your hands of it. That is not good enough, that's why I'm saying that your solution is essentially "let them die in the streets".
There are people that literally cannot take care of themselves due to mental illness. No matter how many services you offer them, it's just more services that they won't use. If the option is commit them and take care of them, or let them die, you're saying let them die.
Your characterization of people suffering from mental illness or homeless people in general being violent
I didn't characterize them "in general" as being that. It absolutely is a possibility, which is why I said "maybe".
I'll ask again - if a homeless severely, severely mentally ill person refuses all help, what do you suggest the government do?
So I'm a fool for believing the board members, but you're not the fool for believing some random journalist printing a rumour with no sources, with nothing even remotely supporting it, who reached out to the company for comment and then refused to print their comment denying it, and printed the unsubstantiated rumour anyway?
Especially when its the reputation of the WSJ
I'm assuming you were using this as a way of defending the WSJ, but it really doesn't.
I’ll give you a hint: what do you think would happen to the stock price of literally any company if the board confirmed they were ousting the CEO before the CEO was out?
No comment. No reply. An outright denial leaves them open to all sorts of lawsuits if they then go and do it.
Your understanding of what companies can and will sue for is remarkably bad.
Nah, it's not.