The Observation Deck

If 90% of life is just showing up a big portion of the other 10% must be being in the right place at the right time.

Yesterday during lunch I overheard a conversation at the booth behind me. The man talking was an ex board member of Mental Health Services. He seemed very animated and upset. The highlights:

He used the term homeless resettlement.

He was concerned about how this "policy" would affect neighborhoods.

Was angry that discussions about this "policy" were not discussed by the whole board but by only part of the board.

Was concerned about financial "shenanigans" in respect to "that apartment in Lakewood".

Said he resigned from the board because of his disgust.

I made the mistake of introducing myself and making some general statements about the apartments at Bonniview. He said he had a friend on the street. He then stopped talking and said what a wonderful organization MHS was. End of discussion.

This illustrates at least two things to me. MHS is not being truthful about their policies or intentions and that those who know what is going on will circle the wagons when people start asking questions. Of course I think we already knew those things but its nice to have some confirmation.

I really don't want to get into this again but I have a question for anyone interested in answering, where should people with mental illnesses live? If they shouldn't live in your backyard, should they be forced to live in the ghettos? I am just truly curious what place they should live.

The plight of the mentally ill will only get worse in Cleveland with the relocation of Northcoast Behavioral Healthcenter to Summit county, although the conditions there were absolutely horrible and treatment besides handing out medication were non-existent so it's no loss in that respect.

But seriously trying to get treatment is very difficult, there isn't enough help out there for individuals with mental illnesses, even trying to get treatment in an ER can take forever. Imagine waiting 36 hours in the ER just to get treated for an illness, not exactly pleasant. Medications costs several hundred if not several thousand dollars a month. Ohio got a rating of C for mental healthcare by NAMI, which I suppose is better than the D the nation got overall.

People would like to ignore the issue, ignore the homeless people on the street, ignore the fact that people don't choose to suffer from mental illness. The solution over the last few decades is to increasingly imprison the mentally ill, I suppose for some people that is probably the best solution, although proper treatment with community health centers is the most cost effective option.

But the fact remains, there are individuals with mental illness in our community and they deserve a place to live, so I ask again where could they live to make everyone happy?

where should people with mental illnesses live?

Minnesota! just kidding

Danielle

Thank you for weighing in on this subject.

I would agree with you 100%

But, there is a difference between living and warehousing. There is difference between
natural lifestyle movement with concentrated effort by as many as 10 different groups that have decided that Lakewood is now the best place to "warehouse" groups of people
that truly tax the resources of a community.

The analogy I like using is that of a boat. How many do we let into that boat? I would say
all that move here. But we have to understand that the more that come in that do not
add to the community financially or through other ways than we stand a chance on sinking
the boat, and all of us go down with it.

It is a very delicate balance that becomes tougher with the economics of the time.

FWIW

.

Stephen, very funny!

Jim,

I understand the difference, I just wonder if it is best for the individuals and the community to have a group of people with adequate resources in one location. With proper support people can be functioning members of society. I agree that things in this particular case were not handled well but on the flipside NIMBY becomes a case and a fair amount of people are going to complain anyhow.

I just don't know if scattering a population throughout the community without access to support services would be a good solution either.

The best solution would be to address the deplorable situation people with mental illnesses face in trying to get services such as healthcare but I am not optimistic that that will happen in my lifetime.

From an opinion article in the PD way back in 2009:

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index. ... _econ.html

Bier is an executive in residence at the Center for Housing Research and Policy at the Levin College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland State University.

The money quote:

"The reason the city of Cleveland is dying is simple: Not enough people who are not poor want to live here, and not enough vibrant businesses want to be here.

How to stop Cleveland from dying is simple: Get people who are not poor to live here, and get vibrant businesses to locate here. "

I think the hospital he is talking about is going to be moved to Northfield.

I wonder: Did City officials who public oppose the move support it privately? Whould they do that?

Danielle Masters wrote:Stephen, very funny!

Jim,

I understand the difference, I just wonder if it is best for the individuals and the community to have a group of people with adequate resources in one location. With proper support people can be functioning members of society. I agree that things in this particular case were not handled well but on the flipside NIMBY becomes a case and a fair amount of people are going to complain anyhow.

I just don't know if scattering a population throughout the community without access to support services would be a good solution either.

The best solution would be to address the deplorable situation people with mental illnesses face in trying to get services such as healthcare but I am not optimistic that that will happen in my lifetime.

Danielle

It is not NIMBY, far from it. It is responsibility, and a belief in the city of Lakewood that
many including our leaders must not share.

It is not NIMBY to want the city to stay afloat is it? I have not said get them out, we do
not want them. I am saying lets make sure we can afford them. Completely different
discussion. We then really also need to discuss, are we talking about those that are
medicated but have normal lives, as opposed to those that are warehoused or hidden
away in the case of some. We need to look at the cost to the city and city services, and
to that extent, the community on the whole.

What you are scattering is the load and cost. I remember Ken Warren saying at a county
library meeting, "I will speak about us joining the county, when the rest of the county
shares the cost of Section 8." Meaning Westlake, Rocky Rive, Bay Village, have kept their
hands clean of the financial burden, why share what the city has Lakewood has paid dearly
into if they are not willing to share our cost of Section 8. A very legitimate stance. After
all it was Lakewood's tax dollars that built our schools and library, why should we pay just
to turn it over to the county? The same is true with the cost of some of the people we are
talking about.

Bill has been bringing up this point for a long time and I agree. There has to be a happy
balance. But who is keeping track? Right now I know of at least 5 programs bringing in
people that need way more city services than others, for psychiatric issues. These are
people that will never add to our tax base. I know of at least 4 programs bringing in
people that are being released from prison needing education, and services. While they
might add to the tax base, do they create a positive or negative pull on the city. A city
that is broke and needing cut 25 service jobs, and many services tax payer count on and
pay for, and were here when they moved in. Do these efforts create an environment that
attracts more tax payers, or makes them flee? This is the balance we walk when talking
about this. Who keeps track? What happens when we hit the breaking point?

A viscous circle of destruction, outlined in "slaughter of cities." City services need to be cut
so as happened here, housing is cut. Quality of housing stock falls, as do rents, and people
start to move out. This makes rents fall lower, as people needing more city services move
in. Which cause taxes to go up or quality of life to fall, lowering rents and causing panic
to fill empty homes. That means people turn to Catholic Charities, Lutheran Homes, etc.
that place more and more people into a city that do not pay into the tax base but extract
a higher need and use from the city. Rents and housing stock falls, and on and on.

Morally, we must make sure people are taken care of. But there are groups that are ready
to prey on those morals to make money.

The secret is keeping the boat afloat, while making the boat attractive enough, to keep
people coming in that can not only add to the boat, but work to make it better.

This is not NIMBY, this is common sense.

.