There is no dispute that California is struggling to deal with a spiral homeless crisis. Our state has more than 181,000 homeless people-a number that has increased by 40% since 2019, which is according to a calm report. Whatever the state government is doing, it is not working.
And what it is doing, mainly, throwing money on the problem. Last year figures of $ 7.2 billion per year, or $ 42,000 per homeless person from the peg state homeless expenses. This number is only for state expenses, not for numerous local costs, including public-protection and public-work budget amounts that pay for related costs.
Instead of rethinking the failed approach of the state, Gov. Gavin Newsom wants to throw more money on the problem and give to state agencies instead of local governments, which have generally done a better job – more power to control money. He wants the voter to approve proposal 1.
Based on the failed project room of Los Angeles, 5 March ballot initiative will run in a loan of $ 6.38 billion to fund specific mental-health services. The general approach makes sense, most of the homeless people suffer from mental health and addiction issues. As usual, the details matters.
And prop. Details of 1 can make someone’s head spin. As AP reported, it is “one of the most complex and longest measures in recent years” and “takes 68 pages” of the voter guide. As this editorial board explained, Prop 1 is a “bureaucratic power grabbing the counties of financing mental health services” and runs the debt – even if the lack of funds is not the main problem.
Other news outlets are echoing these concerns. Another AP report quotes local authorities who are afraid of the measure that “will spoil the problem.” This is because it gives the state the right to pay attention to how the counties spent about $ 3 billion in the annual revenue funded by the tax of 2004 millionaires. If prop. If 1 passes, the state will take 10% of these mental-health funds, leaving less for programs that keep people out of being homeless.
About one third of the props. 1 money will fund local-government efforts to create affordable housing through maximum conversions and new construction. But that money should be in line with California officials – and misleading – the “Housing First” policy that prefer the construction of permanent housing instead of a temporary accommodation combined with social services.
Bottom Line: “Housing First” withdraws money from programs that can help the homeless back to a utopian concept on their feet that mainly look at the homeless as a housing case. Given the issues of mental health and addiction, which is one of the main reasons that many people are homeless, it is unintelligent to the base state policy on the idea that the main solution is just giving them a permanent house. Even if it was a sound approach, the state has shown itself unable to cost quickly and effectively in the construction of affordable housing, with the cost of many projects $ 800,000 or more units. There is not enough money in the state budget to make a dent in homeless numbers at that rate.
There is no easy improvement for California’s homeless crisis, but the initial point, as usual, is not to do more damage. Proposal 1 is a large spending empty check that can actually spoil the situation. By voting NO, voters will help state officials to embrace the programs that can actually work.