California Proposition 1, according to the Voter Guide, theoretically “Amends Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) to provide additional behavioral health services.  Approves a $6.4 billion bond to build (1) more places for mental health care and drug or alcohol treatment and (2) more housing for people with mental health, drug, or alcohol challenges.”

But does it?

All it does, according to the Voter Guide, is “Shift roughly $140 million annually of existing tax revenue for mental health, drug, and alcohol treatment from counties to the state.”

Thus, it takes funds from local jurisdictions, which are very familiar with local needs, and moves them to the Sacramento bureaucratic abyss.

The Voter Guide is full of helpful information to describe the problem. 

“Counties receive money to provide mental health care and drug or alcohol treatment. Counties generally provide these services to people with low incomes and severe mental illnesses. Counties can only spend the MHSA money on certain types of services but have flexibility in how to provide those services.”

This makes sense because county government is best positioned to provide needed services; but as we all know, they haven’t been able to fully meet the challenge presented by a growing number mentally challenged and unhoused people, many of whom are unable to care for themselves because of mental issues or alcohol/drug related issues.

But, Proposition 1 says: “Counties would continue to provide other mental health services under the proposition, but less MHSA money would be available to them for these other mental health services.”

This seems to be a lose-lose situation for local government and the homeless or mentally ill.

The analysis acknowledges there is a shortage of available treatment beds:

“To address the shortage, places for treatment in California would need to be able to see over 10,000 more people at any one time than is possible today. 

“The state government estimates that the bond would build places for 6,800 people to receive mental health care and drug or alcohol treatment at any one time. While the measure would build a lot of new treatment places, there may still be some need for new places after the bond funds are spent.”

So, the “improvement” would be to address about half the need when the state takes over. We should acknowledge that our state and county governments have been struggling with this issue for decades, and while making some progress they still haven’t been able to meet the need.

The Voter Guide explains the homeless issue this way: “The high cost of housing in California means many people cannot afford housing. As of January 2022, there were 171,500 people who were experiencing homelessness in California. Of this total, 10,400 were veterans.”

They fail to acknowledge that one of the biggest reasons is an increasing regulatory burden caused by Sacramento that adds to the cost of construction.

To answer this need they say: “The state government estimates the bond would build up to 4,350 housing units, with 2,350 set aside for veterans. The bond would provide housing to over 20 percent of veterans experiencing homelessness. The number of housing units built by the bond would reduce statewide homelessness by only a small amount.”

This proposition seems to be an attempt to convince voters that the state can do a better job than local governments. By diverting funds from local programs, they want to convince you that things will get better. But it fails to resolve the issue — 4,350 units to address 171,500 people needing housing is a cruel political joke.

When was the last time state level government was able to resolve local problems?

Proposition 1 is a step backward and will only slow down any progress that’s been made to resolve the homeless and mental health issues.

Reference:
Proposition 1 | Official Voter Information Guide | California Secretary of State