PROP 2
PROPOSITION 2 - HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION HOUSING FOR THOSE RECEIVING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
This is a critically important proposition that is more complicated than it looks.
Propositions 1, 5, and 10 also attempt to address the housing crisis.
What is this?
This proposition would establish No Place Like Home, a state program designed to finance permanent housing for those receiving mental health services who are homeless or deemed in danger of homelessness. The price tag is $2B. Apparently housing requires a bond; the state wants to use existing money to pay for the bond.
So this is not a new bond. It is not a new tax. The money comes from an existing income tax: the 1% raised on incomes over $1M by Proposition 63 in 2004, a tax raised specifically to fund mental health services at the county level.
This proposition was placed on the ballot by the legislature.
“This is not a new bond. It is not a new tax”
Why is a new ballot proposition required in order to authorize these funds to prevent homelessness for those already receiving mental health services?
Glad you asked. I was wondering the same thing.
A new proposition is required because if you change the intent or language of an earlier ballot proposition, the voters must approve.
And since this is for housing, not merely mental health services, the courts have ruled it requires voter approval (the legislature tried, in 2016, to simply re-direct funding, but a lawsuit stopped it).
Sounds like a slam dunk, right?
Uhhh...
YES supporters include the Police Chiefs Association and the CEO of Mental Health America (MHA) of California. They have raised over $2M as of the end of July, mostly from Zuckerberg’s (Facebook) foundation, and from developers.
NO supporters include the leaders of the National Alliance on Mental Illness. They have raised $0 as of the end of July.
What in the world, you ask, is the difference between the MHA and the NAMI? Aren’t they both advocating for those suffering mental illness?
Yes, but NAMI is advocating for those whose services will be lost—many of them suffering severe mental illness—by moving the funds to support those who will gain housing as a result. And NAMI claims developers will be the primary beneficiaries.
Ugh.
I already ranted in my analysis of Proposition 1 about California’s housing emergency and why the state must act. Fixing homelessness means funding mental health services but more importantly it means not forcing these people to live on the street.
I am as suspicious of developers as any true blue liberal, but you can’t build anything without one.
In the state legislature, support for this measure was strongly bipartisan.
Let’s check the newspaper editorial boards.
YES: Sacramento Bee, Press-Democrat, San Diego Union-Tribune
NO: None yet (9/20/18)
If you care, my recommendation is: YES, with reservations.
#YesOnProp2 #Prop2
