Khamis schools critics of CARE Court

Gov. Newsom finally took action to help the state's mentally ill and unhoused population by signing into law CARE Court, which creates a legal mechanism that can require mental health treatment for the severely mentally ill. County Supervisor candidate Johnny Khamis answers the misguided criticisms of the CARE Court offered by local progressives (Representative Ash Kalra and Supervisor Susan Ellenberg) in an Opp Now exclusive Q and A. To receive daily updates of new Opp Now stories, click here.

Opportunity Now: Ash Kalra contends in SJ Spotlight that CARE court will "take the voice away from (unhoused) individuals." Where is he getting that?

Johnny Khamis: Kalra misses the point that lots of mentally ill people don't want to go into treatment. And left to their own devices, will refuse treatment. They are not in a position to make a decision for themselves. They haven't historically, and there's no reason to think they will change their minds without intervention. 

Kalra is effectively supporting the status quo, which is just leaving these people to suffer on the street. It's inhumane. We cannot think that continuing to do the same thing will bring about a different result.  We need action. We need change. And CARE is a good step forward. 

ON: In many ways, the question seems to be this: How do we balance the rights of the mentally ill with the need to provide them with humane treatment and services? Who gets to decide for people who really can't decide for themselves?

JK: I think the CARE Court strikes a thoughtful balance by leaving the decision up to a trained judge. It's not the police being given the conservatorship authority--it's someone with the ability to see the bigger picture and the best route for the person in trouble. 

ON: Supervisor Susan Ellenberg makes an odd argument, saying that CARE is flawed because it doesn't build housing. How does that compute? Why is it that local pols think the building overpriced subsidized housing with their nonprofit allies is the only answer to street homelessness?

JK: It's not an either/or. Of course we need more housing and shelter. But in addition to housing we need services and treatment now, and the CARE court conservatorships can make that happen much sooner. 

The county has failed dramatically to fulfill its responsibilities to the mentally ill (it's a county responsibility, not a city responsibility). It's the county's fault that we don't have enough hospital beds to alleviate the plight of the mentally ill. It's the county's fault that some of the beds have been delayed in the planning stage for over eight years. It's the county's fault that they haven't planned to address the sharp increases in mentally ill homelessness.

Trying to change the subject from CARE to housing seems like deflection, an effort to move the conversation away from the county's failures. CARE won't fix everything, but perfect is the enemy of good, and CARE is a substantial step forward all local pols should get behind. 

Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity

Image by Anthony Quintano