Protect Homeless People's Civil Liberties: Oppose SB 1045 Implementation
Mayor London Breed
SF Office Number: (415) 554-6141
Call Script
For Mayor Breed:
I am concerned that the City is expanding the use of conservatorship before providing adequate supportive housing and services for homeless people who have mental illness and substance use disorders. Senator Scott Wiener has recently introduced SB 40, a bill that will further erode rights of people with mental illness and addiction.
Please withdraw your support for the ordinance to implement SB 1045 in San Francisco.
For Supervisors Mandelman, Brown and Stefani (sponsors of the ordinance):
I am concerned that the City is expanding the use of conservatorship before providing adequate supportive housing and services for homeless people who have mental illness and substance use disorders. Senator Scott Wiener has recently introduced SB 40, a bill that will further erode rights of people with mental illness and addiction.
Please withdraw your support for the ordinance to implement SB 1045 in San Francisco.
For Supervisors Ronen, Walton and Mar (members of the Rules Committee):
I am concerned that the City is expanding the use of conservatorship before providing adequate supportive housing and services for homeless people who have mental illness and substance use disorders. State Senator Scott Wiener has recently introduced SB 40, a bill that will further erode rights of people with mental illness and addiction, and he needs to hear from city lawmakers that this is unacceptable for San Francisco.
Please vote against the ordinance to implement SB 1045 in San Francisco when it is heard in the Rules Committee.
For Supervisors Fewer, Haney, Mar, Peskin and Safai:
I am concerned that the City is expanding the use of conservatorship before providing adequate supportive housing and services for homeless people who have mental illness and substance use disorders. State Senator Scott Wiener has recently introduced SB 40, a bill that will further erode rights of people with mental illness and addiction, and he needs to hear from city lawmakers that this is unacceptable for San Francisco.
Please vote against the ordinance to implement SB 1045 in San Francisco when it is presented to the full Board of Supervisors.
The Ordinance to implement SB 1045 was heard this Monday, May 13th in the Rules Committee. In the face of substantial opposition the vote was continued to next Monday, May 20th. Although it may fail in Committee, Supervisor Mandelman plans to invoke a seldom-used tactic to force a vote by the full Board. Thus, it is imperative that you contact your Supervisor this week and let them know that you stand with the ACLU in opposing this Ordinance. Healthcare decisions must not be placed in the hands of the police.
Background
This ordinance shifts the standard for conservatorship from “harm to self and others” to “number of 5150 police detentions.” It will likely increase the number of 5150 police holds. Police will have an incentive to 5150 people either with the false hope that this will lead to services, or to get rid of them so they don’t generate more complaints from the public. 5150 holds can result in increased trauma for people experiencing homelessness, which can worsen mental health and lead people not to trust the system or accept services if they are offered in the future.
The ordinance is estimated to cover between 2 and 100 people, while there are an estimated 7,500 people experiencing homeless in our City.
There is no evidence that the people targeted under 1045 have been offered culturally-competent mental health services and substance use treatment, in conjunction with permanent supportive housing. Of the nearly 7,000 people held at Psych Emergency Services last year, Currently, for every one person who is receiving intensive case management, there are two more who need it and are not. Indivisible SF and homelessness advocates are asking the City to prioritize intensive case management and housing over the implementation of this law.
Despite what the state law requires, no mental health consumers, disability rights organizations, or independent medical professionals were involved in creating the City-level ordinance. At Indivisible, we are dedicated to protecting the most vulnerable and we ask our legislators to craft policy in consultation with those who would be most affected. This ordinance fails to do that.
http://www.sfweekly.com/news/controversial-conservatorship-legislation-may-fail-in-committee/
http://www.westsideobserver.com/news/longTermCare.html#mar19