|
By Jon Coupal
This wasn’t supposed to happen. Proposition 1, a ballot measure backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature with a multi-million dollar campaign against an opposition campaign that had no money, is hanging on by a thread as votes are still being counted.
Political data crunchers are still projecting it will pass but only by the thinnest of margins. While that may be true, in the immortal words of Yogi Berra, “it ain’t over ’til it’s over.”
But even if Prop. 1 squeaks by, the fact that it almost lost has to be a wake-up call for tax-and-spend interests who thought they had a sure thing. In addition to limitless resources, a broad, well financed coalition, and the popular cause of homelessness and mental health, voters were evenly split. But why?
To understand why Prop. 1 is struggling, let’s review what it would do. According to the non-partisan Legislative Analyst, Proposition 1 would change the Mental Health Services Act that was passed by voters in 2004, putting the focus on how the money from the act can be used. Second, it seeks approval of a $6.38 billion bond to build (1) more places for mental health care and drug or alcohol treatment and (2) more housing for people with mental health, drug, or alcohol challenges.
While initial polling on Prop. 1 a few months ago showed strong support, that support began to drop as election day drew closer. The more voters looked into Prop. 1, the more suspicious they became. First, the claim that the proposal would be a “transformational” solution to mental health care and homelessness seemed to be more hyperbolic rhetoric from the governor. The $6.38 billion will pay for only 6,800 beds in treatment facilities and fewer than 4,500 units of housing for the homeless, including homeless veterans, according to the Legislative Analyst. There are currently more than 180,000 individuals experiencing homelessness in California.
Second, many mental health service providers opposed Proposition 1 because it cuts current funding for county mental health programs which receive substantial revenue from the “millionaire’s tax” approved by voters two decades ago. Their opposition appeared prominently on the ballot label itself.
To read the entire column, please click here
|
