California Governor Gavin Newsom is championing a new proposition set to appear on the March ballot. Proposition 1 aims to restructure funding to direct more mental health money toward housing initiatives. State officials are divided on whether the bill will effectively curb California’s ongoing homelessness crisis.
Prop. 1: A $6.4 Billion Proposal for Mental Health and Housing
The bill asks voters to approve a $6.4 billion bond that would fund treatment beds and housing units tailored to those struggling with mental illnesses and addictions. If passed, Prop. 1 would create 6,800 beds in rehabilitation facilities and 4,350 new homes for individuals requiring mental health and addiction services. Of these, 2,350 homes would be reserved for veterans. Additionally, the bill mandates that California counties allocate 30% of their Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) funds toward housing, including rental subsidies and new construction. These MHSA funds are sourced from taxes on California’s billionaires, with an anticipated $1 billion raised annually.
The primary focus of Prop. 1 is to target the homeless who are most visible and hardest to help. However, the majority of California’s homeless population does not fit this description, raising concerns about the bill’s overall effectiveness.
“It will be great for those individuals, but it still leaves almost 98% outside or in shelters,” said Bob Erlenbusch, executive director of the Sacramento Regional Coalition to End Homelessness. With California’s homeless population exceeding 180,000, the addition of 6,800 new beds would barely make a dent. Critics argue that Prop. 1 is not designed to address the entirety of the state’s homelessness issue. Those working in the housing sector remain unconvinced that restructuring funding will significantly impact the crisis.
Debate Surrounds Prop. 1’s Impact on California’s Homeless Crisis
The most the bill might achieve, according to some, is giving the public the impression that the government is taking steps to reduce homelessness by addressing the most visible and disruptive segment of the unhoused population.
“We’re at a point where voters need this,” said Christopher Martin, policy director for Housing California. “Voters are feeling fatigued on housing and they need to see some progress, and I think we need to demonstrate that.” Senator Susan Talamantes Eggman, a Democrat from Stockton, whose efforts to reform the Mental Health Services Act laid the foundation for Prop. 1, echoed this sentiment. “We can’t just see people as a problem,” she said. “You have to see people as people and [ask] how do we do our best to help those who need it the most?”
However, not everyone is convinced. Susan Ellenberg, president of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, views the bill as superficial and potentially harmful in the long run. “In terms of addressing homelessness, we need more housing, period,” she asserted. “And I worry that when people’s expectations are conflated, they become disappointed and feel that problems aren’t being solved even though so much money is going out the door.”
Ellenberg further argued that reallocating funds meant for mental health services to housing could result in fewer resources for homelessness prevention and early mental health interventions. The lack of investment in these preventative measures could ultimately lead to more people ending up on the streets.
Christopher Martin advised tempering expectations regarding Prop. 1. “It’s certainly a step in the right direction,” he said. “But it’s not everything.”
As California grapples with its homelessness crisis, the outcome of Prop. 1 will be a critical indicator of the state’s future approach to this complex issue. Whether it will bring meaningful change or merely serve as a symbolic gesture remains to be seen.
