The Pros and Cons of March's Proposition 1

 

Image by Jernej Furman

 

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s March Proposition 1 ballot measure would raise billions of dollars for mental health housing and treatment facilities, but some clinics fear it would strip them of revenue they need for services they provide today. City of SJ and County of Santa Clara Supes will be reviewing Prop 1 on February 6, 2024. CalMatters parses the debate about the proposition below (edited for length).

Gov. Gavin Newsom has amassed more than $14.2 million in a campaign war chest for his hallmark mental health initiative, which will appear on the March 5 primary ballot, a sum that eclipses the resources of the measure’s opponents.

He’s drawing from longtime allies in health care, unions and tribes to fund the campaign for Proposition 1, which would issue $6.4 billion in bonds to pay for housing and treatment facilities while also redistributing money raised for mental health services through a tax on high earners.

In contrast, the Californians Against Proposition 1 campaign raised a mere $1,000, according to campaign finance records. Newsom’s opponents mostly are small mental health providers and current users of the mental health system that fear losing resources if voters pass the measure.

To the opponents, this David vs. Goliath matchup represents a fight to save community services, like crisis response teams and peer counseling.

Paul Simmons, director of Californians Against Prop. 1, said opponents include groups “that are actually going to be affected” should the measure pass.

“We are generally the consumer,” Simmons said. “A lot of us are white collar professionals, a lot of us are on the verge of homelessness. We’re a broad range, but we’re not the people that are going to give $20,000 or a million dollars.”

But the powerful Yes On 1 campaign, including Newsom, counters that opponents are propping up a broken system that doesn’t reach those with the most critical needs.

Newsom and supporters tout the proposition as a potential solution to the state’s dual opioid and homelessness crises. According to their estimates the bond would build 4,350 housing units, with roughly half set aside for veterans, as well as 6,800 mental health and addiction disorder treatment slots.

Researchers estimate California has a shortage of roughly 8,000 in-patient adult treatment beds. More than 171,000 Californians live on the streets, 6% of whom are veterans. 

Sen. Susan Eggman, a Democrat from Stockton and former social worker, authored part of the legislation that created Prop. 1. She said the measure will provide the final funding and infrastructure to complete California’s mental health transformation.

Prop. 1 comes on the heels of several other seismic changes to the state’s mental health system. These changes include the launch of Newsom’s CARE Court system for people with serious mental illness and dramatic eligibility changes for conservatorship that are expected to result in more people being placed in involuntary treatment. CARE Court established a process for family members, clinicians and law enforcement to petition a court to compel people with untreated serious mental illness into a treatment program.

The State Building and Constructions Trade Council is another million-dollar contributor. Chris Hannan, president of the group, said the investment is worth it. “Trades members are well-skilled and positioned to help the state build out the mental health facilities as well as the housing,” he said. 

In other words, this proposition means jobs for union members.

Newsom’s opponents don’t have much money, but they gained a boost in recent weeks from groups that represent dedicated voters. The League of Women Voters of California and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association recommended their members vote no on Prop. 1.

In its opposition statement, the League of Women Voters of California critiqued the way the measure was “rushed through the Legislature” with last-minute amendments and without substantial debate. That process excluded marginalized communities and Californians who could be affected by the measure, Executive Director Stephanie Doute said in a statement to CalMatters. 

The league also highlighted that Newsom’s plan to reallocate money from the so-called millionaire’s tax will diminish the services counties currently provide and restrict local control. Newsom wants to spend 30% of the tax revenue — about $1 billion a year — on housing.

“The League of Women Voters of California does not support robbing Peter to pay Paul,” Doute said. “California has a desperate need for counties to both continue their current (mental health) work…and to expand it to housing interventions and substance use disorder treatment. Prop. 1 does not provide adequate funding for California’s needed mental health care system.”

It’s unclear exactly how much money specific programs stand to lose if voters pass the measure, but an analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office suggests cuts could be significant. Los Angeles County’s behavioral health department estimates that the proportion of the money it currently receives from the millionaire’s tax for outpatient services will likely be slashed from 32% to 18%.

Other opponents include Mental Health America of California, CalVoices and Disability Rights California. They argue the measure will vastly increase involuntary treatment among people with serious mental illness and addiction disorders. They also say community mental health services like outpatient care and peer counseling will be cut as a result of redirecting money toward housing.

“You don’t fix the system by creating more harm for the people for whom the system is supposed to be beneficial,” said Simmons, the opposition campaign director.

The campaign is using its tiny pocketbook of donations to pay for travel to speak to local community organizations and editorial boards, Simmons said, and is encouraged by the results.

“That tells me that we have the better argument,” Simmons said.

This article originally appeared in CalMatters. Read the whole thing here.

Related:

Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity

Opp Now enthusiastically welcomes smart, thoughtful, fair-minded, well-written comments from our readers. But be advised: we have zero interest in posting rants, ad hominems, poorly-argued screeds, transparently partisan yack, or the hateful name-calling often seen on other local websites. So if you've got a great idea that will add to the conversation, please send it in. If you're trolling or shilling for a candidate or initiative, forget it.

Jax Oliver1 Comment