Decision to scuttle Tacoma psychiatric hospital rife with fear, short on logic
News TribuneDec 21, 2019
With the current shortage of inpatient beds, among other behavioral health services, an untold number of
We've known it for years and been reminded of it repeatedly -- and all too often tragically.
That's why the
To the casual observer, the unanimous decision likely came out of nowhere.
To those intimately and painfully familiar with the holes and shortcomings in
There's no other way to say it.
As
Signature
To do it, Signature needs the
That didn't happen.
The council, flatly and surprisingly, said no, rebuffing the the city hearing examiner in the process.
The rejection, which was led by District 3
For starters, there was the lockstep support it received at the 11th hour -- including, vocally, from Mayor
The reasoning the two elected leaders provided served as the biggest red flag.
Blocker said Tuesday night that while he recognizes the need for more psychiatric beds in
Woodards followed, adding that while she, too, understands the need, that "doesn't mean they all belong in
However you parse it, the message and implications seem pretty clear:
A planned 105-bed psychiatric hospital in
It was discussed as a matter of equity, for
In truth, it came off quintessentially NIMBY, intentional or not..
There's no other way to say it.
Certainly there are elements of truth to Blocker's argument.
For years,
The history doesn't lie, and as the city and county grapple with their response to homelessness, addiction, affordable housing and other crisis-level emergencies, there's no doubt that efforts to address these problems should be spread throughout the city and the region.
Broadly speaking, Blocker is right to push the issue, but let's also shoot straight for a moment: We're talking about a hospital here, not a jail or halfway house.
Plainly, lumping a psychiatric hospital into a broad definition of "services," with the obvious implication being that it would carry with it harmful impacts, seems retrograde and dangerous.
At the very least, it doesn't pass the smell test without something more than conjecture backing it up.
Days after Tuesday night's vote, Blocker stood firm, telling
While Blocker acknowledged he doesn't "know what the impacts" would be in having two psychiatric hospitals clustered in
Moreover, Blocker said, even if the hospital would ultimately be a benefit to his district, there are other areas of the city and county that need it more.
It's all about equity, he repeated.
"I'm not saying (the proposed hospital) is a negative thing. But if it's a positive thing, then put it somewhere else," Blocker said. "If your argument is that it's a positive thing, then I'm saying we'll pass on this positive thing, and let someone else have it.
"Let them deal with it."
Maybe that explanation rings true to some ears, but it certainly doesn't to mine -- especially since there are currently no plans to build a psychiatric hospital anywhere else in the county.
So what are we really to take from the council's decision Tuesday night?
Along with soundbites that seem destined to age poorly, it raises more questions than answers.
Are we supposed to be afraid of those who might seek service at a new psychiatric hospital?
Are we comfortable making potentially life-or-death decisions based on misconceptions or neighborhood hunches?
Is this really where things stand after years spent trying to de-stigmatize mental health?
I certainly hope not, but based on what we saw and heard this week, I'm afraid we might have a long way to go.
There's no other way to say it.
That really is something to be afraid of, for
___
(c)2019 The News Tribune (Tacoma, Wash.)
Visit The News Tribune (Tacoma, Wash.) at www.TheNewsTribune.com
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.