"But that I am forbid to tell . . ." Part II

Wisconsin Chapter 51 mandates the creation of "community support programs" in every Wisconsin county. These "community support programs" are really programs of assertive community treatment, regardless of what their particular names are.

They claim to "help" clients "find affordable housing". Here in Dane County, "affordable housing" is a euphemism for dangerous, low-rent, substandard units that students don't want.

And, it isn't "found". It's all been predetermined by staff and their friends in the "affordable housing" industry.

There is a little bit about how the "affordable housing" works for people with "mental illness" on another page on this site: "But that I am forbid to tell . . ." Part I

Under Wisconsin statute, the counties administer the programs for mental health "treatment". The generic term for these programs is "community support programs" or "CSP's". They have different individual names, though, as indicated in Nancy's story ("Fascism for the Third Millennium") on the front page of this Website.

These programs actually aren't administered directly by the county itself, though. They enter into a contractual relationship with the county and bill the county for "services". The citizens of Dane County and Wisconsin need to know a little more about the details of this contractual relationship. It seems rather obscure.

So, the folks who work at these various CSP's develop pretty close relationships with local "affordable housing" landlords. (Formerly known as slumlords.)

These landlords begin to depend on the business that comes their way through the CSP's. The CSP staff, for its part, feels flattered, special and powerful by virtue of its ability to "find" housing for the "mentally ill"------who, after all, may have been recently homeless.

Then, there's the role of the county Protective Payee Program. These are people who do work directly for the county. They have control of clients' SSI and SSDI money. They pay rent directly to an "affordable housing" landlord whether the client wants to live there or not. In fact, they pay rent whether the client is living there or not.

Some "affordable housing" units are so dangerous, frightening and inhospitable, that clients just go back to live in the street-----even though rent is being paid in their name for an "affordable housing" unit.

And, perhaps the client living in the street while paying rent would be lucky enough to miss her CSP worker's visit. So, that could be a good thing, because that CSP worker is probably making that visit to further degrade this client and break down what little of her self-esteem remains. The worker may also be making the visit to give the client court-ordered neuroleptic drugs.

So, if the client isn't there for several visits, the CSP staff person may attempt to obtain a "body attachment" for the cops to pick up the client and take her to the hospital.

Or, if the client is there but doesn't feel like opening the door that day (and who would?), the CSP staff person might get go get a cop and a warrant and break down the door.

Does this sound like "integration into the community"? Not really. It sounds like it might be worse than any institution. There's no "integration". And, there's no "community".

An assistant from the county corporation's office was heard in the courthouse saying, "Well, there was that one 'mentally ill' woman who locked herself into her apartment for several days, so we had to break down the door."

Please note: This was this woman's own apartment, where she herself--------an American citizen--------lived. This happened here, in the United States. Does it sound like the woman did anything bad or harmful? No, "locking herself into her own apartment" was her only crime. Isn't that what all of us do every day? Don't we take that for granted, as an inalienable right? To "lock ourselves into" our own homes? So what if she didn't go out for a couple of days? We've all done that at one time or another.

Now, getting back to the tenants who are forced to pay rent for an "affordable housing" unit they don't even live in:-------

The natural question to ask would be, "Why don't they just go to the CSP or the county payee and say they don't want to pay for it anymore because they don't live there."

Well, the CSP staff and the county payee tell the client to "talk to the landlord" to see if the landlord will let you break the lease.

Here in Wisconsin, there is such a thing as "constructive eviction". This means that, if you find the place unlivable, you move out and simply stop paying the rent. The landlord is obliged to make a reasonable effort to fill the unit before billing you for the balance of the rent for that lease term.

If the landlord decides to litigate for that balance--------assuming there is a balance after the landlord has made that reasonable effort--------then, you may be able to use the defense of "constructive eviction". You may be able to convince the court that something inhibited your "quiet enjoyment" of the unit. (The term "quiet" in this context does not refer only to noise. It has a broader meaning: "Free from excessive activity, turmoil or vexation.")

With some, if not most, of these "affordable housing" units in Madison, the court probably would be convinced there was constructive eviction. This would have the general effect of forcing "affordable housing" landlords to go out of business, or, at least, be more conscientious. They don't want to do either.

When your county payee and your CSP makes you pay rent because of the fact that you have signed a lease, they are effectively acting as pro bono legal representatives for the landlord. This is the same as if the landlord had to do all the following in court, either pro se or through his legal representative:

Instead of the landlord's having to do all that-----and pay for it-------- by him or herself, our publicly funded mental health system does it all, at public expense.

These legal services are all provided for the landlord free of charge by the county and the CSP (which is itself in turn paid by the county). No wonder "affordable housing" landlords are so fond of renting to the "mentally ill".

This forced tenancy is essentially and effectively a prison sentence, not a "community setting" as touted by certain proponents of forced "treatment". The client/tenant isn't being "integrated" into anything, except exploitation.

So, when the county payee or the CSP tells clients they should "talk to the landlord to see if they can obtain permission to break the lease," they know perfectly well the landlord will never give such permission. Further, they know why.