Back to Voter Guide Landing Page
Prop 2 -- Homes for Mentally Ill Peeps
The gov is trying to free up more funds to deal with the housing crisis in the state. Prop 2 lets the state use $140 million per year of county mental health funds to pay for $2 billion in bonds for housing mentally ill homeless people. Prop 2 is on the ballot because it’s reallocating funds from Prop 63. Changes to ballot initiatives require a vote from the public.
Thus we were visited by a ghost of elections (and propositions) past…
I AM THE GHOST OF PROP 63….“People call me the Mental Health Services Act 3(MHSA), originally passed in 2004. I tax the wealthy, creating a specific stream of money for mental health care, but I am limited. Mentally ill parolees coming out of prison can’t be supported by my ghastly charms.”
Prop 2 funds housing for people with mental illness and allows the state to use MHSA money for this program. Onsite treatment in supportive housing with direct social services reduces public health costs associated with homelessness. Prop 2 requires police, mental health experts, and housing advocates to work together. Program is not being used as much by counties and this allows the gov to take money from that to put into housing.
Con(cerns):
* Could take money away from counties who are otherwise empowered to decide how to treat the mentally ill and could use those funds for housing if they think that’s what’s best in their county. The reallocation of funds to housing the homeless could result in treatment cuts that lead to homelessness. The prop doesn’t offer state protection against local zoning that prevents supportive housing from being built or state protection against discrimination from neighborhoods that don’t want severely mentally ill neighbors, so the funds might not get used for housing anyway.
*”I’m OK with supporting housing for people with mental illness, but not substance abuse problems. What’s the definition of mentally ill person in this bond?” Not clear. People with major mental illness often also have substance abuse issues. Trying to separate those issues as a policy matter is very difficult. People need a variety of services and the housing first movement seeks to provide services all in one place.
* Swap income tax for a bond? Seems like a raw deal! Income tax on the rich is better than a bond… Possibly means additional funding. Mental health agencies are split for and against it. Each a chapter of NAMI -- I guess they vote independent, just like us…
* Do we look at addiction as illness? Cost with interest is 5.6 billion. Spending an immense amount of overhead to move money around(?). Can’t we just tax the rich more?
All major endorsements point to a "yes" vote. That includes both the CA Dem and Republican parties (!!). Also all the major newspapers throughout the state, the CA League of Women Voters, CA Labor Federation, CA Fed. of Teachers, CA Council of Churches, etc. Green Party says no on Prop 2 (but yes on 1) and Sierra Club takes no position.
One intrepid voter says, “I don't know about you, but I am not even going to read the text given this level of bipartisan, cross-cultural support. YES for easy ones!”
Legislature: 107 yes, just one no!
Yes - 10; No -- 3, Undecided -- 1
