California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks about his proposed state budget for fiscal year 2024-2025 during a press conference Wednesday, January 10, 2024, in Sacramento, California. (AP Photo/Ricci Pedroncelli)
Suggestion 1 is expensive. It’s complicated. It’s a bold but imperfect approach to managing the state’s worsening mental health crisis.
The measure, pushed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, is the only statewide proposal heading into the March 5 election. Contrary to what the ballot title suggests, it likely won’t have a significant impact on California’s overall homelessness crisis.
But it would target a critical demographic: people on the streets without access to desperately needed mental health and addiction treatment. This measure would provide an alternative to California’s current siled approach, which too often provides housing without treatment or housing without treatment.
Proposition 1 is a necessary measure that voters should support.
This bill is divided into two sections. First, it authorizes the state to borrow $6.4 billion through bonds to fund the construction of treatment facilities and homeless housing. Second, it would change rules approved by voters in 2004 for spending billions of dollars annually in state income taxes on the very wealthy. It is the latter part that is the most controversial.
But let’s start with bonds. Repayments from the state’s general fund would cost an estimated $310 million a year over the next 30 years.
Of the $6.4 billion, $4.4 billion will go toward building facilities to treat 6,800 people with mental health, drug and alcohol problems. That would have a big impact on states that need the ability to treat 10,000 more people at once, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analysis Service.
The remaining $2 billion will go toward housing the homeless and people with mental health, drug and alcohol problems. The money would go to local governments to convert hotels, motels and other buildings into housing, or to build new housing.
But the projected 4,350 units would have minimal impact on the problems of the more than 180,000 Californians living on the streets. Even more troubling is that more than half of the $2 billion will be set aside for veterans, even though they make up about 6% of the homeless population. It makes no sense politically. These provisions appear to be politically driven to favor special interests and garner votes.
Next is the voter-approved redistribution of revenue from the so-called “millionaire tax.” The tax provides a revenue source for California’s 58 counties to fund mental health services and currently generates more than $3 billion annually. The county uses this funding to treat a wide range of mental health issues, with an emphasis on prevention, early intervention, and community-based care.
Proposition 1 would restructure how this money is used, with greater focus on housing and people suffering from severe mental illness. How Prop. 1 impacts current county programs and services will depend largely on how each county currently spends its wealthy tax dollars.
Counties would be required to spend 30% on housing interventions for people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. Another 35% will fund services and intensive treatment for adults diagnosed with severe mental illness. The remaining 35% would go to behavioral health services, with about half of the funds earmarked for early intervention programs. The proposal would also provide some flexibility to counties, allowing them to move limited funds between strict categories with state approval.
Legislative analysts say counties currently receive about $10 billion to $13 billion a year in state and federal funds, including the millionaire’s tax, for mental health and drug and alcohol treatment. The issue is how to allocate about one-third of that funding.
It is understandable that some may be upset about the impact this will have on some county services and the reduction in county spending flexibility. In fact, this will require counties to use their funds more efficiently and take advantage of new funding sources, such as those made available by recent changes to the state’s Medi-Cal reimbursement laws.
However, the state’s resources are limited, current funding allocations cannot get the job done, and this problem requires a statewide approach. To better demonstrate California’s federal, state, and county efforts to address mental health issues, Proposition 1 would require counties to report how they spend money from these sources. I’m also looking for
Newsom wants to try something new. Voters should give him that chance. But they also need to hold him accountable for ensuring that Proposition 1 delivers the promised improvements.
Written by Bay Area News Group Editorial Board. Read all of the IJ March Election Endorsements at marinij.com/opinion/endorsements.
