Prop 1 - Yea or Nay? (Los Angeles, San Diego: crime, houses, incomes)

[david91722]

AUTHORIZES $6.38 BILLION IN BONDS TO BUILD MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT FACILITIES FOR THOSE WITH MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE USE CHALLENGES; PROVIDES HOUSING FOR THE HOMELESS. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE.

SUMMARY
Put on the Ballot by the Legislature
Amends Mental Health Services Act to provide additional behavioral health services. Fiscal Impact: Shift roughly $140 million annually of existing tax revenue for mental health, drug, and alcohol treatment from counties to the state. Increased state bond repayment costs of $310 million annually for 30 years. Supporters: California Professional Firefighters; CA Assoc. of Veteran Service Agencies; National Alliance on Mental Illness–CA Opponents: Mental Health America of California; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; CalVoices

WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS

YES
A YES vote on this measure means: Counties would need to change some of the mental health care and drug or alcohol treatment services provided currently to focus more on housing and personalized support services. The state could borrow up to $6.4 billion to build (1) more places where people could get mental health care and drug or alcohol treatment and (2) more housing for people with mental health, drug, or alcohol challenges.

NO
A NO vote on this measure means: Counties would not need to change the mental health care and drug or alcohol treatment services provided currently. The state could not borrow up to $6.4 billion to build more places where people could get mental health care and drug or alcohol treatment and more housing for people with mental health, drug, or alcohol challenges.

ARGUMENTS

PRO
Proposition 1 addresses California's urgent crisis of homelessness, mental health and addiction, authorizing $6.4 billion in bonds and directing billions more annually to expand mental health and addiction services, build permanent supportive housing and help homeless veterans. Vote YES on Proposition 1. Learn more at TreatmentNotTents.com.

CON
Prop. 1 is huge, expensive and destructive. It costs more than $10 billion, but isn't a "solution" to homelessness. Now's a BAD TIME for new bonds and debt. Prop. 1 CUTS funds for mental health programs that are working. Mental health advocates and taxpayer groups oppose it. Vote NO!

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

FOR
Yes on Prop. 1—Governor Newsom's Ballot Measure Committee
TreatmentNotTents.com

AGAINST
Hope Collins
Californians Against Proposition 1
7101 Amoloc Lane
Lotus, CA 95651
(530) 298-7995
info@prop1no.com
prop1no.com

[wac_432]

Does it allow for involuntary treatment and sequestration? Can courts take dangerous, mentally-unstable individuals and mandate treatment in these facilities, per the CARE courts? If so, I'll vote yes.

If this is just revolving-door methadone clinics, voluntary rehab that can be ignored, and "wet house" shelters then no. That's not a solution.

[CA4Now]

"This two-pronged measure would fund a $6.4 billion bond to drastically expand the state’s mental health and substance abuse treatment infrastructure. A majority of the money, $4.4 billion, would be used to build 10,000 in-patient and residential treatment beds across the state. The remainder would fund permanent supportive housing with half set aside for veterans with mental illness or addiction disorders.

The second part of the measure would require counties to change the way they spend existing mental health dollars by directing them to prioritize housing for people who are chronically homeless."

Watch the 1 minute video clip.

https://calmatters.org/california-vo...mental-health/

Proposition 1 on the March 5 ballot won’t help the vast majority of the approximately 180,000 Californians living on the street, nor even most of the estimated one-third with serious psychiatric illnesses, substance use problems or both. It’s important to say that upfront, because the “Treatment not Tents” campaign urging a “yes” vote could leave voters with the impression that the measure offers a far more sweeping solution to homelessness and inadequate behavioral health treatment than it does.

But better to get too few new resources than none at all. When compared with the cost of doing nothing, Proposition 1 is an important step forward in meeting California’s responsibility to the most vulnerable homeless people and those housed Californians with behavioral health problems most at risk of ending up on the street.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/stor...-proposition-1

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by wac_432

Does it allow for involuntary treatment and sequestration? Can courts take dangerous, mentally-unstable individuals and mandate treatment in these facilities, per the CARE courts? If so, I'll vote yes.

If this is just revolving-door methadone clinics, voluntary rehab that can be ignored, and "wet house" shelters then no. That's not a solution.

Do you really think that forced rehab somehow works? In California merely using drugs is not a crime and you can't be locked up for it: Robinson V California "It is unconstitutional for a state to punish a defendant for drug addiction, which is a status rather than an act, when the defendant has not engaged in any illegal conduct involving drugs in the state"

[stablegenius]

Originally Posted by wac_432

Does it allow for involuntary treatment and sequestration? Can courts take dangerous, mentally-unstable individuals and mandate treatment in these facilities, per the CARE courts? If so, I'll vote yes.

If this is just revolving-door methadone clinics, voluntary rehab that can be ignored, and "wet house" shelters then no. That's not a solution.

Here here. I'm generally with you on that if it is #1, it'd be a yes from me, but most likely the bill would not be executed properly, and it would just be more money down the drain. I'm probably leaning on the safe side as a NO, since these things never go according to plan, but I need to look into it further.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by wac_432

Does it allow for involuntary treatment and sequestration? Can courts take dangerous, mentally-unstable individuals and mandate treatment in these facilities, per the CARE courts? If so, I'll vote yes.

You may have misunderstood what the CARE Act is. The CARE Court program is meant to help adults experiencing specific types of severe, untreated mental illnesses, and to be eligible, there are specific qualifications. So far, CARE courts are only in the following counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, San Francisco, Stanislaus, Glenn, and Tuolumne.

[V8 Vega]

No! it's a huge tax increase with the money disappearing down the bottomless hole of government.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by V8 Vega

it's a huge tax increase

No Changes to Tax. Proposition 1 does not change the tax on people with incomes over $1 million per year.

State Gets Larger Share of Tax. As shown in Figure 1, Proposition 1 increases the share of the MHSA tax that the state gets for mental health programs. The proposition also requires the state to spend a dedicated amount of its MHSA money on increasing the number of mental health care workers and preventing mental illness and drug or alcohol addiction across communities....

https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Pr...er=1&year=2024

[JGC97]

The only thing that bothers me about this Proposition is it turns the power over to the state instead of leaving it within each county affected. Giving power to the state is just another recipe for disaster. That said, I'll probably vote no on it, even though I'd like to see money to establish places for all affected. Those bonds I don't mind paying through my property taxes. My "no" vote would be solely because of who would ultimately take charge of it.

[mgforshort]

Like most other super expensive programs helping the "disadvantaged" the largest part goes to pay the administrative class and whatever remains dribbles down to the needy. There are tiny houses for the homeless sitting empty for months in Sacramento due to a delay with the permits. I'm voting NO. Our taxes spent on bonds is money denied for fixing roads and bridges.