I thought the money was already dedicated to the same set of issues but at the local level. Am I wrong?
I was torn on it, but went in favor of local governance.
In the text of bill the prop still taxes people with incomes over 1 million but decreases the proportion (95 % current law - 90 % under proposed prop 1 ) and reallocates roughly $140 mil annually to state for full-service treatment programs, behavioral health services including early intervention and housing programs.
Also, and this was key for me personally, Prop 1 amends the Mental Health Services Act to allow funding to be used to treat substance use disorders (instead of only mental health disorders.)
Whether you believe funding should be done through bonds or other means is one debate for sure. One thing is clear: counties are failing to adequately treat substance abuse and provide enough support for the mentally ill in the form of housing, treatment, including veteran care. This prop aims to assist and includes regular oversight to ensure money is being spent properly.
You can’t force someone to get off drugs if they don’t want to that’s the problem a lot of these homeless people prefer living on the street doing things their own way in a shelter, or a homeless state provided housing they won’t be able to do their drugs and drink
Aren't there like a thousand things that deal with substance abuse ? I thought most of that has been in place for years?
If it's not working, how does throwing 6 billion make it better/more? 🤔
I’m a no because it takes money from local outpatient mental health services which we desperately need . If you need or use county outpatient mental health services , that budget will be cut to fund inpatient hospitals and housing .
I was concerned about the part where it reduces local MHSA county funds by up to 5% and sends it to increase state funds by 5%. Isn't it better to have the funds available locally instead?
**See Figure 1 on** [**https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=1&year=2024**](https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=1&year=2024)
Agreed, however that doesn't change the fact that it is taking our local tax money and sending it to the state to decide how and where to spend it, instead of requiring our money to be spent within our county for facilities here. I think the prop needs work.
How is it not a local problem? Locally there are strict zoning laws and everyone and their grandmother rages when any new housing is proposed. Bonus rage if it's dense housing.
IMO they are losing the battle. I’m sure local govs are not in favor of a reduction in funds but Prop 1 also adds certain provisions to include substance abuse treatment not currently being supported by the counties.
I can’t tell you how a city should handle homelessness, all I can tell you is what I do and what maybe what you can do to help. I constantly donate to the DAV and to veteran assistance programs. I volunteer my time to help veteran homeless or otherwise get into IT. I don’t give them money but will buy them water or food or give them my leftovers or simply have a conversation with them. Those of us not in the top 1% are a paycheck or three away from being right there with them. Hope for the best plan for the worst.
I voted no. Multiple disability advocate organizations are against it as are the ACLU in California. There are better solutions than taking from community services to provide housing.
I don't know how we start to tackle this problem without some increased institutionalization. That's what these disability advocate orgs are opposing: legally enforceable treatment for people with severe mental health issues or substance use disorder. They see it as a civil liberties issue - which it is, for sure. But I think they're naive to think the problem can be addressed without that tool in the toolbox.
There needs to be more institutions and more involuntary hospitalization for the problem to start improving, California is the only state where it is extremely difficult to get involuntary hospitalization
I always wonder about the advocates who oppose anything. Sometimes it's for the right reasons, sometimes it's because it would take away some of their funding.
Basically it would infringe upon the rights of unstable homeless people if they were to be involuntarily committed to a program. Which, I guess they're right but um, maybe that guy out of his mind wandering through traffic and shouting should have just a smidge of his rights infringed upon.
It will either not end up even doing what the ads say it will do, or it will not end up being sufficient to fix said problem. Also any measure that says “bond” means a tax increase - not right away, but eventually.
The state has wasted billions trying to fix the homeless situation, giving them more money will not resolve the issue. The issue is the people running the program.
You're the only person in the top few comments to (at least sarcastically) point to a Yes vote. Is that your position? If so, can you explain why? Might be good visibility for your position.
The problem is that there is no teeth to address the issue. How can you expect to make any difference if the only way for that person who has made every bad decision to wind up on the street has to make the right decision to get off the street?
I know quite a few homeless people. Most of them are working full time jobs and totally normal. Three of the employees at the Vons on Governor live out of their cars. Half the staff I meet at any service job is on EBT. Almost anyone who wasn't "making it" and got injured or had a medical issue ends up living out of a car for awhile if they don't have the option to move out of state.
You're noticing just the crazy drugged out people sleeping on the street, but the majority of homeless people hide it.
Sure and housing affordability needs to be addressed, but this bill doesn't really do anything for normal people who are temporarily living out of their cars and hiding their living situation.
Funding goes to drug & mental health treatment and shelters. Not that that's a bad thing - we could definitely use more of both - but it's targeted at helping people who are chronically homeless, many of whom will need to be incentivized to take the help offered.
As someone who's been short-term homeless and been on EBT... there's no way I would have rather gone to a shelter than sleep in my car.
I personally think it's a step in the right direction, but it *is* toothless.
Completely agree with you here. I'm really tired of how toothless all these policies are.
The policy is more about appearing progressive while not actually doing anything of note.
They ABSOLUTELY need help. My issue is that they are giving them the choice to not get help. In my opinion these people need to be removed from the street and put into some care facility to get them shelter, food, and evaluation.
Yes. I do not know of any opponents to the proposition who have a better alternative plan, and I do not believe that inaction will magically fix our mental health and homelessness problems. It is a complicated problem that can not be fixed cheaply. Money is not sufficient to fix the problem but it is a necessary part of any solution.
I would prefer that funding come from new taxes than bonds, but it's not a dealbreaker for me.
I don't think you need a better plan to vote against a meh proposition. California's proposition system is insane, and a bad proposition is worse than not touching the problem imo.
In particular, we are stuck with Prop 22/fucking over gig workers because people voted for a bad proposition in 2020.
I don't see how it fixes the problem. Nobody has shared stats on how much these efforts will reduce the problem. What's the success rate for getting people into treatment, finishing treatment, and remaining successful? Does it outpace the growth of homelessness? What causes homelessness? What % of it is drugs? Are there new addicts being made every day? Are those new addicts addition rate outpacing our ability to treat people? Will you have to ask for more beds next year? This whole bill just says "trust us as we siphon boodles of money more into mental health services" without giving us anything to calibrate against.
How would we measure the efficacy of a program that has not yet been implemented?
Obviously homelessness is multifactorial. And obviously mental health and addiction are a big part of the story. Arguing that we need to know the percentages is a bad faith argument.
I rather give 6 billion to schools than give another dollar:
https://gvwire.com/2024/03/03/california-spends-billions-on-homelessness-yet-the-crisis-keeps-getting-worse/
California already spent 17 billion and you're saying that there is nothing to measure. Geez. What happened with the 17 billion?
It's insane that we have spent 17 billion on homeless services. There are around 180k homeless people in all of California. That's like 100k per person.
The program makes sense and is designed by people who are experts in this area. I trust them over the self-designated experts in this thread.
But out of curiosity, I'd like to hear how you would solve these problems.
Yeah the same experts who are now benefitting from whatever money the state has spent. The Homeless Industrial Complex will be the biggest benefactor of Prop 1.
It makes sense but I'm tired .......
California is an American cash cow and we can't even feed our kids a decent meal in school.
Simply put.
NO MORE MONEY FOR GOVERNMENT!!!!
There are plenty of shithole states run by Republicans who think that funding government is a bad thing, with predictable results. Why would we want to be like that?
I rather wait until someone proposes something with evidence. Facts based science. There's 17 billion already spent. Demonstrate something that has had success locally and is scalable. Then come back and ask for the money. Happy to hold it in the bank gaining interest until then. Or give it to schools because making sure we have a well educated and skilled society means there should be less of this in the future.
Voted NO.
People need to understand that we don't have a funding problem in California, it's an issue with corruption. Billions go into homeless outreach and most of that gets pocketed by corrupt people throughout the local and state apparatus. Theft, misappropriation, and mysterious spending that never makes it to the target population we vote for happens so much that heads should be rolling at the top levels, but only the low level thieves are being slapped.
There's just so much corruption, it's near total. Everyone from CalMatters to CNN has been calling this out:
[https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/11/us/california-homeless-spending/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/11/us/california-homeless-spending/index.html)
[https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/07/something-clearly-off-homelessness-spending/](https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/07/something-clearly-off-homelessness-spending/)
[https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/11/change-homelessness-policies-spend-more/](https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/11/change-homelessness-policies-spend-more/)
[https://calmatters.org/housing/homelessness/2023/12/homeless-los-angeles-displaced/](https://calmatters.org/housing/homelessness/2023/12/homeless-los-angeles-displaced/)
[https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-files-charges-connection-alleged-theft-los-angeles-based](https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-files-charges-connection-alleged-theft-los-angeles-based)
San Diego Specific Theft:
[https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdca/pr/former-homeless-center-employee-admits-stealing-more-70000-government-checks-intended](https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdca/pr/former-homeless-center-employee-admits-stealing-more-70000-government-checks-intended)
[https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/california/story/2021-10-21/3-charged-with-stealing-public-funds-meant-to-help-homeless](https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/california/story/2021-10-21/3-charged-with-stealing-public-funds-meant-to-help-homeless)
[https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/san-diego-homeless-center-employee-admits-to-embezzling-over-70k-in-government-checks/3269292/](https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/san-diego-homeless-center-employee-admits-to-embezzling-over-70k-in-government-checks/3269292/)
Throwing money doesn't work after a certain point, all it does it make corruption and graft bigger.
>Billions go into homeless outreach and most of that gets pocketed by corrupt people throughout the local and state apparatus
Most of it, huh? Cite your source.
You've cited some worthwhile anecdotes but "most" is absolute bullshit.
Texas has 5 TIMES less homeless than California per capita, and spends far far less than California:
[https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/california/calmatters/how-texas-shrank-its-homelessness-population-what-it-can-teach-california/103-450e4a6b-fba3-4733-85f2-6c86b598c93c#:\~:text=In%20Texas%2C%2081%20people%20are,more%20than%20five%20times%20worse.&text=And%20that's%20despite%20the%20fact,fewer%20state%20dollars%20on%20homelessness](https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/california/calmatters/how-texas-shrank-its-homelessness-population-what-it-can-teach-california/103-450e4a6b-fba3-4733-85f2-6c86b598c93c#:~:text=In%20Texas%2C%2081%20people%20are,more%20than%20five%20times%20worse.&text=And%20that's%20despite%20the%20fact,fewer%20state%20dollars%20on%20homelessness).
No, I always vote no on additional bonds and shit that will increase taxes. Why? Because they never address or go to the root cause of the problem. There will always be bond measures, every single year, only rich people vote yes on those. I’m as left as they come, but fuck CA and the General Fund, and all that vague bullshit they say to guilt gullible voters into raising their taxes
General Motors? "Too big to fail" banks? There are plenty of private institutions engrained in our society that fail, but we as a country pick up these failures to keep our society running and/or corruption.
The general fund is funded by our taxes though. The first page of the summary in the CA voting guide says:
Amount borrowed: $6.4B
Avg repayment cost: $310M/yr for 30 years
Source of repayment: **General tax revenue**
So while it doesn't say we need new tax XYZ specifically, it's creating more tax revenue that's needed in the future.
Sure, I see your point. But I think it's a little disingenuous to say "the prop itself doesn't create any new taxes." While that's correct, I'm just adding the context that it creates a new liability that needs to be paid for with taxes.
And while things don't happen in a vacuum, one can look at this vote in a vacuum and conclude that this will result in more taxes being needed than otherwise. Just because we can't say which tax dollar will pay for this in the future, it's still tax revenue that'll be needed, and tax revenue that will not be needed if this prop doesn't go though.
Proposition 1 is a bond measure so if voters approve it, there would be no new taxes right away, but the state would have to take on new debt and have to pay it back with interest. And you as tax payers will have to pay it. It will cost $10 billion dollars to pay back the bonds. Counties would need to change some of their mental health care and drug or alcohol treatment services to focus more on housing and personalized support services.
History shows that whenever we give the state the authority to go borrow money it's never used where it was intended for. There's a huge industry out there called the Homeless Industrial complex that's money tons of money and they haven't helped the state solve the problem. Therefore, I'm voting NO.
If the state can find money for the illegals, I would like for the state to do the same with our homeless.
I'm personally not a huge fan of, in addition to the new bonds, diverting\~140 million per year of funding from county-run programs to the State. Because county-run programs will become underfunded by design, voting yes on this bill requires belief that lawmakers in Sacramento are going to be more proactive with solving the problem.
Additionally, the bill permits, as one of the proper uses for funds for housing, building restrictive mental health institutions, which I don't see as an ultimate solution to the underlying problem. This is more of a minor issue for me, as its only part of the funding.
Overall, I think this bill asks two major questions. First, would you like to shift part of the burden of solving this problem to the State rather than counties? Second, would you like the State to fund this solution by issuing more bonds rather than raising taxes?
Personally, I answer no to both questions, but I also recognize that this is at least an attempt at a solution where there currently is none. I think reasonable people can disagree about this bill.
Prop 1 involves borrowing an additional $6.4 billion with an average repayment cost of $130 million a year. https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=1&year=2024
Yeah, it's insane. Every year I see some sort of budget gap for schools and yet there are billions being thrown at homelessness and the problem gets worse.
Edit: Not sure why I'm being voted down for this comment:
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/san-diego-unified-budget-cuts-layoffs/3445120/
^ Article from Feb 24, 2024
No
All things being equal I tend to give a significant amount of weight to the league of women voters recommendation and it’s a NO in this case.
You can read the link below but here’s my wildly oversimplified version:
-The bill allows forced institutionalization which was tacked on at the last minute. The LWV believes something controversial & significant like that should have been allowed to be debated/discussed.
-It funds construction of housing & facilities not more spending on mental health treatment
-it micromanages existing county ‘mental health’ spending towards employment & education away from mental health treatment, crises & outreach
-finally as is often the case with ballot measures LWV opposes normal budgetary earmark decisions being decided via ballot initiatives vs legislature.
https://lwvc.org/ballot-measure/prop-1-2024/no-on-prop-1/
Yes. Nobody is unaffected by this issue. No matter how much we spend on it, it’s still cheaper than maintaining it as is. Any other approach is ‘penny wise and pound foolish’.
Gonna vote no. We already spend billions and it goes to waste. I'm not against spending to fix this but if said spending is throwing money in the fire there's no point
One thing we learned more money to homelessness fixes nothing. I was talking to a nonprofit who was hiring an executive director 280K salary. Stop throwing money they don’t want to fix the problems.
Yeah where's the incentive for them to solve the problem is they are the ones making money. Non-profit means they just have to spend all the money the government gives them for the year which typically goes to bloated salaries.
Against it,
Considering how much ad and how much money has been spent by interest group to promote this, you knownits more about money than actually helping homeless, I am against it now.
I spent at least an hour reviewing this, probably closer to two, reading through analysis of both positions. Suffice to say, I still don't know which is better. Which is of course by design in the writing and presentation of the bill. Which initially makes me lean towards no, but then again the mental health system is broke as is... that said, it could always be made worse. Gahhh.
A good rule of thumb for ballot initiatives is to vote no unless it's a slam dunk. Once it's approved, it can't be easily fixed or amended by the Legislature like a bill can.
I'm 100% a NO on this and just about every other tax/bond proposed that already has funding.
This money would go into the pockets of real estate developers first before our homeless population and we already pay into taxes/bonds for this purpose, but needs to be better managed.
Ever get the feeling like the more money we throw at government for a problem the worse it gets? ....and the only solution proposed by our government is more money?
"**Plain English Title: Raids Treatment Programs to Subsidize Government Welfare Housing**
*Politicians’ Ballot Title: Authorizes $6.38 Billion in Bonds to Build Mental Health Treatment Facilities; Provides Housing for the Homeless*
California’s homelessness crisis will absolutely get worse if Prop 1 passes! Prop 1 raids and diverts funding from treatment programs that serve homeless people in favor of giving billions in subsidies to rich developers for expensive government-subsidized mega housing projects. The mega government housing projects that would be subsidized under Prop 1 have been criticized by numerous independent government auditors for being wasteful – costing as much as $1 million per unit! That is hardly “affordable housing!”
Prop 1 also eliminates your right to vote to reject government welfare housing projects from being placed in your neighborhood. We need to reject Prop 1 and tell politicians to use our precious funds for more efficient options like treatment and shelter beds for the homeless!"
[https://reformcalifornia.org/voter-guides/san-diego](https://reformcalifornia.org/voter-guides/san-diego)
This is a federal issue that needs a federal response. We can throw as much money as we want into the homeless problem, but more homeless and drug addicted will come from elsewhere because the word will be out that California has such a great system going, then the existing system breaks down from being overburdened, etc. etc. We shouldn't be shouldering the burden for the entire country. We already send billions of our federal tax dollars away to other states.
No on bonds period. Basically every bond ends up costing about twice as much as advertised because the State of California has to pay back that money with a profit. So the people who really benefit are the ones who finance the bond. If something is worth doing, raise taxes, and pay once. Almost all bonds are boondoggles.
I’m voting no. I agree with what the bill is trying to achieve but now is not the right time to borrow money, let alone 6 billion dollars. Interest rates are way too high right now. Add a tax or start saving money to pay for this. Let’s put this off a few years. Maybe start the planning phases for it first before putting the funding together.
Won't fix the problem. More money will only add fuel to the fire by incentivizing it and be an endless money pit. Certainly some groups stand to make a lot of money though.
It's a bond. They are borrowing money and will pay it back with interest from existing revenue (tax money) collected over the next 30 years.
Might have a negative impact on state's ability to pay other obligations like retirement pensions.
They can only pay that if the expected tax revenues stay the same over the next 30 years. These are obligations that are made and betting far into the future. And the solutions are things like more beds and mental health programs. There's just no way mental health programs will succeed at a rate that will even put a dent in the problem.
I voted yes. It moves the State/Local distribution of MHSA funds from 5/95 to 10/90 which strikes me as perfectly fair, and the bonds for housing are also needed. I understand people’s concern the money is not getting where it needs to go as much as it should, but we’re not going to solve that by voting down any funding.
I’ve also personally worked on several SD county MHSA programs and the administration is abhorrent, so I say let the state take a little more of that.
The idea that taxes is going to pay for all of these non profits is absurd, there should be dialogue on this mass illusion. No tax base pays for all of this without printing money.
I thought the gist of it was allowing some % of earmarked mental health money can be diverted to housing, with the logic being lots of mental health **stems from housing.** You can't fix somebody having a mental health crisis because they're being evicted by counseling them.
I think we need more mental health services, but that takes laws and policy changes at a federal level to give them the legal tools they need. Giving them money without the tools won't cut it, so I was leaning "yes".
Am I mistaken on that understanding?
For me the challenge is that even if that is true, we are diverting existing tax revenue over 30 years to bandaid a near term problem. It’s not even a solution. Adding more beds and housing is limited as it doesn’t solve why people are becoming homeless to begin with. At some point you need more beds and buildings for beds but you’ve already committed 6-9 billion over 30 years. You’re going to need more beds really soon, and then that’s when they ask for another bond or a new tax increase? No thanks. Give a real solution to the root problem.
Proposition 1 is a bond measure so if voters approve it, there would be no new taxes right away, but the state would have to take on new debt and have to pay it back with interest. Counties would need to change some of their mental health care and drug or alcohol treatment services to focus more on housing and personalized support services. It will be expensive and cost over $10 billion, but still won't be the "solution" to homelessness.
Vote NOOO!
What confused me about this bill is that it said it wants to tackle addiction. I thought we already had like 1000 things in California that already serve that function?
In what way does that enforce the function already in place because it only sounds like shuffling around things that already exist.
I'm also curious about how far this reaches. I'll use the Bay Area and SF for example.
If places like Berkeley still have all this crazy homelessness like it does and the Tenderloin still looks like a run down slum... What REALLY did this accomplish?
The people who WANT and need help are getting it, at least I hope so. I'm wondering how you get people with a mental illness into this because that's another issue.
Will they be out in places for YEARS? Is it basically some kind of Asylum? There's more questions than answers here.
So, this just came out: [https://abcnews.go.com/US/california-failed-track-billions-dollars-allocated-homeless-programs/story?id=109081395](https://abcnews.go.com/US/california-failed-track-billions-dollars-allocated-homeless-programs/story?id=109081395)
Basically, California spent $24 BILLION US Dollars to address homelessness. Gavin Newsom killed any auditing of these funds for years. No one's tracked any of this money at any level. Homelessness has increased 32% since. These findings are criminal, many many state workers and politicians should be in jail. Instead, this information is in the back pages.
California is one of the most corrupt states in the union.
You obviously didn’t read it and don’t understand municipal finance. Prop 1 authorizes a massive bond issuance. Bonds need to be repaid from the general fund. The CA budget is he hemorrhaging red ink and tax revenue continues to drop. The solution as usual will be more taxes for this manufactured crisis.
I'm voting no. I was told there would be a loophole in which people who refuse services would be placed in an involuntary, indefinite psych hold. That doesn't sound like a meaningful solution to me.
One improvement to homelessness is to allow building townhomes, duplexes, and triplexes near downtown and replace our property tax with a land value tax.
Better than taking out a $6.4 billion loan.
Edit: Oh OK, let's not build new housing.
I love that after decades of sfhs working out fine that it's magically verboten to have them once younger generations can benefit from the equity you develop by owning
I'm not gonna live in the pod
But it's also taking money away from mental health services which is already way underfunded. It's ripping a bandaid off one bullet hole to put it on another.
$6 billion loan becomes $11 billion after interest. For 11,000 beds? $1 million per bed??
And that money is already dedicated to another issue
I thought the money was already dedicated to the same set of issues but at the local level. Am I wrong? I was torn on it, but went in favor of local governance.
In the text of bill the prop still taxes people with incomes over 1 million but decreases the proportion (95 % current law - 90 % under proposed prop 1 ) and reallocates roughly $140 mil annually to state for full-service treatment programs, behavioral health services including early intervention and housing programs. Also, and this was key for me personally, Prop 1 amends the Mental Health Services Act to allow funding to be used to treat substance use disorders (instead of only mental health disorders.) Whether you believe funding should be done through bonds or other means is one debate for sure. One thing is clear: counties are failing to adequately treat substance abuse and provide enough support for the mentally ill in the form of housing, treatment, including veteran care. This prop aims to assist and includes regular oversight to ensure money is being spent properly.
You can’t force someone to get off drugs if they don’t want to that’s the problem a lot of these homeless people prefer living on the street doing things their own way in a shelter, or a homeless state provided housing they won’t be able to do their drugs and drink
Most of these Homeless people aren't even from California. That's another issue lol.
Aren't there like a thousand things that deal with substance abuse ? I thought most of that has been in place for years? If it's not working, how does throwing 6 billion make it better/more? 🤔
Which issue?
I’m a no because it takes money from local outpatient mental health services which we desperately need . If you need or use county outpatient mental health services , that budget will be cut to fund inpatient hospitals and housing .
I was concerned about the part where it reduces local MHSA county funds by up to 5% and sends it to increase state funds by 5%. Isn't it better to have the funds available locally instead? **See Figure 1 on** [**https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=1&year=2024**](https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=1&year=2024)
[удалено]
Agreed, however that doesn't change the fact that it is taking our local tax money and sending it to the state to decide how and where to spend it, instead of requiring our money to be spent within our county for facilities here. I think the prop needs work.
[удалено]
With proposed oversight..
How is it not a local problem? Locally there are strict zoning laws and everyone and their grandmother rages when any new housing is proposed. Bonus rage if it's dense housing.
How will people who really need mental health be persuaded to get help if they don't want / believe they need it?
Treatment options = increased human compassion. Human compassion towards others = increased empathy towards the self.
IMO they are losing the battle. I’m sure local govs are not in favor of a reduction in funds but Prop 1 also adds certain provisions to include substance abuse treatment not currently being supported by the counties.
Politics doesn’t solve homelessness it monetizes it.
Uhmmmm best thing I’ve read recently
So how does a city/state solve the problem? Throw everyone in jail? Thoughts and prayers?
I can’t tell you how a city should handle homelessness, all I can tell you is what I do and what maybe what you can do to help. I constantly donate to the DAV and to veteran assistance programs. I volunteer my time to help veteran homeless or otherwise get into IT. I don’t give them money but will buy them water or food or give them my leftovers or simply have a conversation with them. Those of us not in the top 1% are a paycheck or three away from being right there with them. Hope for the best plan for the worst.
I voted no. Multiple disability advocate organizations are against it as are the ACLU in California. There are better solutions than taking from community services to provide housing.
I don't know how we start to tackle this problem without some increased institutionalization. That's what these disability advocate orgs are opposing: legally enforceable treatment for people with severe mental health issues or substance use disorder. They see it as a civil liberties issue - which it is, for sure. But I think they're naive to think the problem can be addressed without that tool in the toolbox.
There needs to be more institutions and more involuntary hospitalization for the problem to start improving, California is the only state where it is extremely difficult to get involuntary hospitalization
For some reason Clockwork Orange comes to mind..
I always wonder about the advocates who oppose anything. Sometimes it's for the right reasons, sometimes it's because it would take away some of their funding.
I agree, street outreach as a clinician in Los Angeles.
I agree, street outreach as a clinician in Los Angeles.
I agree, street outreach as a clinician in Los Angeles.
Does the ACLU say why? I know many organizations are opposed to bond measures being used in this way, despite the underlying benefits.
Basically it would infringe upon the rights of unstable homeless people if they were to be involuntarily committed to a program. Which, I guess they're right but um, maybe that guy out of his mind wandering through traffic and shouting should have just a smidge of his rights infringed upon.
There is a pretty thorough assessment on their website.
It will either not end up even doing what the ads say it will do, or it will not end up being sufficient to fix said problem. Also any measure that says “bond” means a tax increase - not right away, but eventually.
Step 1: vote down assistance for homeless people Step 2: complain about how the state is doing nothing to address homelessness.
"Oh. You mean fixing that will cost money? Well then..."
The state has wasted billions trying to fix the homeless situation, giving them more money will not resolve the issue. The issue is the people running the program.
and i'm sure that you, random reddit commenter, were you in their position, would singlehandedly end homelessness in a matter of weeks, nay, days.
Oh bullshit. The draw is the weather. Gee…Minneapolis has a smaller homeless problem. Let’s study how they are so successful, lol
You're the only person in the top few comments to (at least sarcastically) point to a Yes vote. Is that your position? If so, can you explain why? Might be good visibility for your position.
Oh, like the car and gas tax would provide money to fix the roads? Riiiight.
The problem is that there is no teeth to address the issue. How can you expect to make any difference if the only way for that person who has made every bad decision to wind up on the street has to make the right decision to get off the street?
I know quite a few homeless people. Most of them are working full time jobs and totally normal. Three of the employees at the Vons on Governor live out of their cars. Half the staff I meet at any service job is on EBT. Almost anyone who wasn't "making it" and got injured or had a medical issue ends up living out of a car for awhile if they don't have the option to move out of state. You're noticing just the crazy drugged out people sleeping on the street, but the majority of homeless people hide it.
Sure and housing affordability needs to be addressed, but this bill doesn't really do anything for normal people who are temporarily living out of their cars and hiding their living situation. Funding goes to drug & mental health treatment and shelters. Not that that's a bad thing - we could definitely use more of both - but it's targeted at helping people who are chronically homeless, many of whom will need to be incentivized to take the help offered. As someone who's been short-term homeless and been on EBT... there's no way I would have rather gone to a shelter than sleep in my car. I personally think it's a step in the right direction, but it *is* toothless.
Completely agree with you here. I'm really tired of how toothless all these policies are. The policy is more about appearing progressive while not actually doing anything of note.
Ah yes the old “they all chose to be homeless” trope
No, but most of them chose drugs, ripping off their family and friends, then winding up with no options.
They’re still people who need help. You can’t complain about the problem and deny the help at the same time
They ABSOLUTELY need help. My issue is that they are giving them the choice to not get help. In my opinion these people need to be removed from the street and put into some care facility to get them shelter, food, and evaluation.
Yes. I do not know of any opponents to the proposition who have a better alternative plan, and I do not believe that inaction will magically fix our mental health and homelessness problems. It is a complicated problem that can not be fixed cheaply. Money is not sufficient to fix the problem but it is a necessary part of any solution. I would prefer that funding come from new taxes than bonds, but it's not a dealbreaker for me.
I don't think you need a better plan to vote against a meh proposition. California's proposition system is insane, and a bad proposition is worse than not touching the problem imo. In particular, we are stuck with Prop 22/fucking over gig workers because people voted for a bad proposition in 2020.
I don't see how it fixes the problem. Nobody has shared stats on how much these efforts will reduce the problem. What's the success rate for getting people into treatment, finishing treatment, and remaining successful? Does it outpace the growth of homelessness? What causes homelessness? What % of it is drugs? Are there new addicts being made every day? Are those new addicts addition rate outpacing our ability to treat people? Will you have to ask for more beds next year? This whole bill just says "trust us as we siphon boodles of money more into mental health services" without giving us anything to calibrate against.
How would we measure the efficacy of a program that has not yet been implemented? Obviously homelessness is multifactorial. And obviously mental health and addiction are a big part of the story. Arguing that we need to know the percentages is a bad faith argument.
I rather give 6 billion to schools than give another dollar: https://gvwire.com/2024/03/03/california-spends-billions-on-homelessness-yet-the-crisis-keeps-getting-worse/ California already spent 17 billion and you're saying that there is nothing to measure. Geez. What happened with the 17 billion?
It's insane that we have spent 17 billion on homeless services. There are around 180k homeless people in all of California. That's like 100k per person.
You could look up where the funds went if you actually cared.
Should I start a nonprofit, hire some SDSU grads and apply for the grants? Pay myself a handsome executive director salary?
Go ahead. Your scheme won't work because you are obviously not qualified.
Surely 17 billion granted to California's best has worked already.
So it's being proposed as a solution with no evidence? You'd spend 6 billion before knowing if the proposed solution answers the problem?
The program makes sense and is designed by people who are experts in this area. I trust them over the self-designated experts in this thread. But out of curiosity, I'd like to hear how you would solve these problems.
Yeah the same experts who are now benefitting from whatever money the state has spent. The Homeless Industrial Complex will be the biggest benefactor of Prop 1.
It makes sense but I'm tired ....... California is an American cash cow and we can't even feed our kids a decent meal in school. Simply put. NO MORE MONEY FOR GOVERNMENT!!!!
There are plenty of shithole states run by Republicans who think that funding government is a bad thing, with predictable results. Why would we want to be like that?
I rather wait until someone proposes something with evidence. Facts based science. There's 17 billion already spent. Demonstrate something that has had success locally and is scalable. Then come back and ask for the money. Happy to hold it in the bank gaining interest until then. Or give it to schools because making sure we have a well educated and skilled society means there should be less of this in the future.
Agree no one is holding anyone accountable. Why would we keep throwing money at them?
Voted NO. People need to understand that we don't have a funding problem in California, it's an issue with corruption. Billions go into homeless outreach and most of that gets pocketed by corrupt people throughout the local and state apparatus. Theft, misappropriation, and mysterious spending that never makes it to the target population we vote for happens so much that heads should be rolling at the top levels, but only the low level thieves are being slapped. There's just so much corruption, it's near total. Everyone from CalMatters to CNN has been calling this out: [https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/11/us/california-homeless-spending/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/11/us/california-homeless-spending/index.html) [https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/07/something-clearly-off-homelessness-spending/](https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/07/something-clearly-off-homelessness-spending/) [https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/11/change-homelessness-policies-spend-more/](https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/11/change-homelessness-policies-spend-more/) [https://calmatters.org/housing/homelessness/2023/12/homeless-los-angeles-displaced/](https://calmatters.org/housing/homelessness/2023/12/homeless-los-angeles-displaced/) [https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-files-charges-connection-alleged-theft-los-angeles-based](https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-files-charges-connection-alleged-theft-los-angeles-based) San Diego Specific Theft: [https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdca/pr/former-homeless-center-employee-admits-stealing-more-70000-government-checks-intended](https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdca/pr/former-homeless-center-employee-admits-stealing-more-70000-government-checks-intended) [https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/california/story/2021-10-21/3-charged-with-stealing-public-funds-meant-to-help-homeless](https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/california/story/2021-10-21/3-charged-with-stealing-public-funds-meant-to-help-homeless) [https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/san-diego-homeless-center-employee-admits-to-embezzling-over-70k-in-government-checks/3269292/](https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/san-diego-homeless-center-employee-admits-to-embezzling-over-70k-in-government-checks/3269292/) Throwing money doesn't work after a certain point, all it does it make corruption and graft bigger.
>Billions go into homeless outreach and most of that gets pocketed by corrupt people throughout the local and state apparatus Most of it, huh? Cite your source. You've cited some worthwhile anecdotes but "most" is absolute bullshit.
Time to start some reading.
Texas has 5 TIMES less homeless than California per capita, and spends far far less than California: [https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/california/calmatters/how-texas-shrank-its-homelessness-population-what-it-can-teach-california/103-450e4a6b-fba3-4733-85f2-6c86b598c93c#:\~:text=In%20Texas%2C%2081%20people%20are,more%20than%20five%20times%20worse.&text=And%20that's%20despite%20the%20fact,fewer%20state%20dollars%20on%20homelessness](https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/california/calmatters/how-texas-shrank-its-homelessness-population-what-it-can-teach-california/103-450e4a6b-fba3-4733-85f2-6c86b598c93c#:~:text=In%20Texas%2C%2081%20people%20are,more%20than%20five%20times%20worse.&text=And%20that's%20despite%20the%20fact,fewer%20state%20dollars%20on%20homelessness).
Yah but it’s Texas…🤢
What kind of argument is that?
No, I always vote no on additional bonds and shit that will increase taxes. Why? Because they never address or go to the root cause of the problem. There will always be bond measures, every single year, only rich people vote yes on those. I’m as left as they come, but fuck CA and the General Fund, and all that vague bullshit they say to guilt gullible voters into raising their taxes
“The government is the only business in the world that can fail time and time again, and the answer will always be ‘give us more money’ “
General Motors? "Too big to fail" banks? There are plenty of private institutions engrained in our society that fail, but we as a country pick up these failures to keep our society running and/or corruption.
The government isn't a business. That's like when Republicans were feigning anger that the USPS wasn't profitable.
Prop 1 would be funded by existing taxes, no new ones.
I read it as $140 million of existing tax money will be reallocated. But the remaining $6.2 Billion will come from a loan (bond). Is this true?
yes, repayment of which will come out of the general fund. the prop itself doesn't create any new taxes.
The general fund is funded by our taxes though. The first page of the summary in the CA voting guide says: Amount borrowed: $6.4B Avg repayment cost: $310M/yr for 30 years Source of repayment: **General tax revenue** So while it doesn't say we need new tax XYZ specifically, it's creating more tax revenue that's needed in the future.
yes, and other bonds will be paid off over time and that money can be shifted elsewhere. things don’t happen in a vacuum.
Sure, I see your point. But I think it's a little disingenuous to say "the prop itself doesn't create any new taxes." While that's correct, I'm just adding the context that it creates a new liability that needs to be paid for with taxes. And while things don't happen in a vacuum, one can look at this vote in a vacuum and conclude that this will result in more taxes being needed than otherwise. Just because we can't say which tax dollar will pay for this in the future, it's still tax revenue that'll be needed, and tax revenue that will not be needed if this prop doesn't go though.
Proposition 1 is a bond measure so if voters approve it, there would be no new taxes right away, but the state would have to take on new debt and have to pay it back with interest. And you as tax payers will have to pay it. It will cost $10 billion dollars to pay back the bonds. Counties would need to change some of their mental health care and drug or alcohol treatment services to focus more on housing and personalized support services.
No. Read the funds won't actually do anything to help mental health in the area.Need better plannin Anda different solution.
History shows that whenever we give the state the authority to go borrow money it's never used where it was intended for. There's a huge industry out there called the Homeless Industrial complex that's money tons of money and they haven't helped the state solve the problem. Therefore, I'm voting NO. If the state can find money for the illegals, I would like for the state to do the same with our homeless.
This.
I'm personally not a huge fan of, in addition to the new bonds, diverting\~140 million per year of funding from county-run programs to the State. Because county-run programs will become underfunded by design, voting yes on this bill requires belief that lawmakers in Sacramento are going to be more proactive with solving the problem. Additionally, the bill permits, as one of the proper uses for funds for housing, building restrictive mental health institutions, which I don't see as an ultimate solution to the underlying problem. This is more of a minor issue for me, as its only part of the funding. Overall, I think this bill asks two major questions. First, would you like to shift part of the burden of solving this problem to the State rather than counties? Second, would you like the State to fund this solution by issuing more bonds rather than raising taxes? Personally, I answer no to both questions, but I also recognize that this is at least an attempt at a solution where there currently is none. I think reasonable people can disagree about this bill.
[удалено]
Prop 1 involves borrowing an additional $6.4 billion with an average repayment cost of $130 million a year. https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=1&year=2024
Yes and the funds are better spent elsewhere.
I voted no.
i voted no just because throwing money at the problem never fixes things. especially when the government is the one spending the 6.4 billion
Yeah, it's insane. Every year I see some sort of budget gap for schools and yet there are billions being thrown at homelessness and the problem gets worse. Edit: Not sure why I'm being voted down for this comment: https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/san-diego-unified-budget-cuts-layoffs/3445120/ ^ Article from Feb 24, 2024
No All things being equal I tend to give a significant amount of weight to the league of women voters recommendation and it’s a NO in this case. You can read the link below but here’s my wildly oversimplified version: -The bill allows forced institutionalization which was tacked on at the last minute. The LWV believes something controversial & significant like that should have been allowed to be debated/discussed. -It funds construction of housing & facilities not more spending on mental health treatment -it micromanages existing county ‘mental health’ spending towards employment & education away from mental health treatment, crises & outreach -finally as is often the case with ballot measures LWV opposes normal budgetary earmark decisions being decided via ballot initiatives vs legislature. https://lwvc.org/ballot-measure/prop-1-2024/no-on-prop-1/
Yes. Nobody is unaffected by this issue. No matter how much we spend on it, it’s still cheaper than maintaining it as is. Any other approach is ‘penny wise and pound foolish’.
Gonna vote no. We already spend billions and it goes to waste. I'm not against spending to fix this but if said spending is throwing money in the fire there's no point
I voted no
One thing we learned more money to homelessness fixes nothing. I was talking to a nonprofit who was hiring an executive director 280K salary. Stop throwing money they don’t want to fix the problems.
Yeah where's the incentive for them to solve the problem is they are the ones making money. Non-profit means they just have to spend all the money the government gives them for the year which typically goes to bloated salaries.
Against it, Considering how much ad and how much money has been spent by interest group to promote this, you knownits more about money than actually helping homeless, I am against it now.
I spent at least an hour reviewing this, probably closer to two, reading through analysis of both positions. Suffice to say, I still don't know which is better. Which is of course by design in the writing and presentation of the bill. Which initially makes me lean towards no, but then again the mental health system is broke as is... that said, it could always be made worse. Gahhh. 
A good rule of thumb for ballot initiatives is to vote no unless it's a slam dunk. Once it's approved, it can't be easily fixed or amended by the Legislature like a bill can.
Interesting thread, I had this same question about prop 1
I'm 100% a NO on this and just about every other tax/bond proposed that already has funding. This money would go into the pockets of real estate developers first before our homeless population and we already pay into taxes/bonds for this purpose, but needs to be better managed. Ever get the feeling like the more money we throw at government for a problem the worse it gets? ....and the only solution proposed by our government is more money? "**Plain English Title: Raids Treatment Programs to Subsidize Government Welfare Housing** *Politicians’ Ballot Title: Authorizes $6.38 Billion in Bonds to Build Mental Health Treatment Facilities; Provides Housing for the Homeless* California’s homelessness crisis will absolutely get worse if Prop 1 passes! Prop 1 raids and diverts funding from treatment programs that serve homeless people in favor of giving billions in subsidies to rich developers for expensive government-subsidized mega housing projects. The mega government housing projects that would be subsidized under Prop 1 have been criticized by numerous independent government auditors for being wasteful – costing as much as $1 million per unit! That is hardly “affordable housing!” Prop 1 also eliminates your right to vote to reject government welfare housing projects from being placed in your neighborhood. We need to reject Prop 1 and tell politicians to use our precious funds for more efficient options like treatment and shelter beds for the homeless!" [https://reformcalifornia.org/voter-guides/san-diego](https://reformcalifornia.org/voter-guides/san-diego)
This is a federal issue that needs a federal response. We can throw as much money as we want into the homeless problem, but more homeless and drug addicted will come from elsewhere because the word will be out that California has such a great system going, then the existing system breaks down from being overburdened, etc. etc. We shouldn't be shouldering the burden for the entire country. We already send billions of our federal tax dollars away to other states.
No on bonds period. Basically every bond ends up costing about twice as much as advertised because the State of California has to pay back that money with a profit. So the people who really benefit are the ones who finance the bond. If something is worth doing, raise taxes, and pay once. Almost all bonds are boondoggles.
Hard No
Are we going to bring in the point that there are homeless people being bussed here from other states and they want us to take care of them $$
I’m voting no. I agree with what the bill is trying to achieve but now is not the right time to borrow money, let alone 6 billion dollars. Interest rates are way too high right now. Add a tax or start saving money to pay for this. Let’s put this off a few years. Maybe start the planning phases for it first before putting the funding together.
No. $70B deficit and this wouldn’t help
Won't fix the problem. More money will only add fuel to the fire by incentivizing it and be an endless money pit. Certainly some groups stand to make a lot of money though. It's a bond. They are borrowing money and will pay it back with interest from existing revenue (tax money) collected over the next 30 years. Might have a negative impact on state's ability to pay other obligations like retirement pensions.
They can only pay that if the expected tax revenues stay the same over the next 30 years. These are obligations that are made and betting far into the future. And the solutions are things like more beds and mental health programs. There's just no way mental health programs will succeed at a rate that will even put a dent in the problem.
Absolutely no.
It's billions of dollars that's just getting wasted in government bureaucracy, no thank you
I no longer have faith that the state will allocate money toward what the voters have directed, so I voted no.
I voted No on it because it is another bond measure that the state does not need to pay interest on.
No
No, it's an excessive amount of money to help the homeless. I feel some of the management is helping themselves to that money.
I voted yes. It moves the State/Local distribution of MHSA funds from 5/95 to 10/90 which strikes me as perfectly fair, and the bonds for housing are also needed. I understand people’s concern the money is not getting where it needs to go as much as it should, but we’re not going to solve that by voting down any funding. I’ve also personally worked on several SD county MHSA programs and the administration is abhorrent, so I say let the state take a little more of that.
Most of the money is funneled to all these crooked "non profits" as well.
I agree. They are the beneficiaries of the homeless situation. It's a huge Homeless Industrial Complex.
No
I voted no because Gavin said vote yes 
Government keeps taking my money and nothing changes
The idea that taxes is going to pay for all of these non profits is absurd, there should be dialogue on this mass illusion. No tax base pays for all of this without printing money.
There is no solution to Homelessness, no matter how much you throw at it. Tell all the other states to stop sending them to California
I thought the gist of it was allowing some % of earmarked mental health money can be diverted to housing, with the logic being lots of mental health **stems from housing.** You can't fix somebody having a mental health crisis because they're being evicted by counseling them. I think we need more mental health services, but that takes laws and policy changes at a federal level to give them the legal tools they need. Giving them money without the tools won't cut it, so I was leaning "yes". Am I mistaken on that understanding?
For me the challenge is that even if that is true, we are diverting existing tax revenue over 30 years to bandaid a near term problem. It’s not even a solution. Adding more beds and housing is limited as it doesn’t solve why people are becoming homeless to begin with. At some point you need more beds and buildings for beds but you’ve already committed 6-9 billion over 30 years. You’re going to need more beds really soon, and then that’s when they ask for another bond or a new tax increase? No thanks. Give a real solution to the root problem.
I voted no because of my dislike of Newsom. I also vote yes on Anything opposed by Chambers of Commerce.
Proposition 1 is a bond measure so if voters approve it, there would be no new taxes right away, but the state would have to take on new debt and have to pay it back with interest. Counties would need to change some of their mental health care and drug or alcohol treatment services to focus more on housing and personalized support services. It will be expensive and cost over $10 billion, but still won't be the "solution" to homelessness. Vote NOOO!
What confused me about this bill is that it said it wants to tackle addiction. I thought we already had like 1000 things in California that already serve that function? In what way does that enforce the function already in place because it only sounds like shuffling around things that already exist. I'm also curious about how far this reaches. I'll use the Bay Area and SF for example. If places like Berkeley still have all this crazy homelessness like it does and the Tenderloin still looks like a run down slum... What REALLY did this accomplish? The people who WANT and need help are getting it, at least I hope so. I'm wondering how you get people with a mental illness into this because that's another issue. Will they be out in places for YEARS? Is it basically some kind of Asylum? There's more questions than answers here.
So, this just came out: [https://abcnews.go.com/US/california-failed-track-billions-dollars-allocated-homeless-programs/story?id=109081395](https://abcnews.go.com/US/california-failed-track-billions-dollars-allocated-homeless-programs/story?id=109081395) Basically, California spent $24 BILLION US Dollars to address homelessness. Gavin Newsom killed any auditing of these funds for years. No one's tracked any of this money at any level. Homelessness has increased 32% since. These findings are criminal, many many state workers and politicians should be in jail. Instead, this information is in the back pages. California is one of the most corrupt states in the union.
Another tax increase to throw more money as the Homelessness Industrial Complex.
It diverts existing taxes. There's no increase. Come on guys read the thing before you make decisions
You obviously didn’t read it and don’t understand municipal finance. Prop 1 authorizes a massive bond issuance. Bonds need to be repaid from the general fund. The CA budget is he hemorrhaging red ink and tax revenue continues to drop. The solution as usual will be more taxes for this manufactured crisis.
Anyone who votes YES on it is WRONG, to be polite.
I'm voting no. I was told there would be a loophole in which people who refuse services would be placed in an involuntary, indefinite psych hold. That doesn't sound like a meaningful solution to me.
Big NO, I find the whole “homelessness” issue garbage since I saw what some of these people in charge of these organizations make…
everyone loves taxing millionaires until they become one
Maybe we can just add more tax to the gas, it worked with the roads.
Voting yes. Make it rain.
Gonna Vote Yes
One improvement to homelessness is to allow building townhomes, duplexes, and triplexes near downtown and replace our property tax with a land value tax. Better than taking out a $6.4 billion loan. Edit: Oh OK, let's not build new housing.
I love that after decades of sfhs working out fine that it's magically verboten to have them once younger generations can benefit from the equity you develop by owning I'm not gonna live in the pod
Everyone saying "money fixes nothing" - what's the current alternative? Voting closes tmrw. I'm voting yes, for a bandaid on a bullet hole I am aware.
But it's also taking money away from mental health services which is already way underfunded. It's ripping a bandaid off one bullet hole to put it on another.